- From: Frans Knibbe | Geodan <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 11:13:20 +0100
- To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <54EAFD40.10900@geodan.nl>
On 2015-02-20 16:43, Christine Perey wrote: > Hello all, > > Thank you, Frans, for volunteering to do this important work which > will benefit many people in the future. > > In addition to clear (clearly written) definitions, consistency is > very important. > > Could the glossary development and maintenance have a few people > (maybe form a task force of subject matter experts from the domains) > who are responsible for all the editing? Well, I proposed to start a wiki page that can serve as a glossary. I could fill it with a few terms, but after that I think it should be a shared endeavour, like the rest of the wiki. Especially with a subject like the definitions of core concepts it is important that many contribute and work towards something that is broadly supported. But perhaps it is a good idea to have a few people feeling an extra amount of responsibility for ensuring things like consistency and completeness. Greetings, Frans > > Christine > >> On Feb 20, 2015, at 12:55 AM, Thiago José Tavares Ávila >> <thiago.avila@ic.ufal.br <mailto:thiago.avila@ic.ufal.br>> wrote: >> >> Excellent. >> >> The glossary will optimize our time to align concepts and will enrich >> the documentation of our working group. >> >> I agree with this proposal. >> >> >> Thiago >> >> Em quinta-feira, 19 de fevereiro de 2015, Frans Knibbe | Geodan >> <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl <mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>> escreveu: >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> Following yesterdays teleconference, I think it would be a good >> idea to create a glossary page on the wiki, with concise >> definitions of the terms we use in communication. We operate in a >> confluence of two domains, so there is a risk of not fully >> understanding each other's jargon. Besides that, we want to be >> clear towards external interested people, who can have very >> different backgrounds. >> What we certainly want to avoid is thinking that we are talking >> about the same thing when in fact we are not! >> >> Two examples come to mind: >> >> When discussing spatial information, I once was involved in a >> long and headache inducing discussion about whether a >> geographical name is a feature (a 'feature' is a very basic >> concept in the OGC world). It was rather hard to find the place >> in the OGC standards where the feature concept is defined, but >> still that did not resolve the issue. >> >> Another discussion I took part in was taking place in the Linked >> Data domain. It involved a basic concept of the semantic web, the >> 'resource'. It was apparent that the concept is hard to grasp for >> some people, and that it is somewhat open to interpretation. >> Especially with the distinction between an 'information resource' >> and a 'non information resource', and a definition that has >> changed somewhat over time. >> >> If we agree that having a glossary page is a good idea I would be >> happy to start one and put 'spatial feature' and 'spatial >> context' on it. >> >> A side effect would be that we will have URLs for definitions >> that can be used on other web pages. >> >> Regards, >> Frans >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Frans Knibbe >> Geodan >> President Kennedylaan 1 >> 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL) >> >> T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347 >> E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','frans.knibbe@geodan.nl');> >> www.geodan.nl <http://www.geodan.nl/> | disclaimer >> <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Frans Knibbe Geodan President Kennedylaan 1 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL) T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347 E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl www.geodan.nl <http://www.geodan.nl> | disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 23 February 2015 10:13:58 UTC