- From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
- Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 10:22:50 -0500
- To: DWBP Public List <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Hi folks, During this morning’s call, I asked whether developing a separate glossary might be redundant with the task we already have to develop a vocabulary. I was thinking that, since a vocabulary is a list of what is meant by specific terms to be used in a certain context, if we were writing a vocabulary that would define what we were also contemplating putting into a glossary, the two would be redundant. Looking again at the charter, I see that there are two vocabularies that we are expected to develop, and they are both pretty specific. Since neither of them is a general vocabulary for describing published datasets, I would suggest that we stick with adding a glossary, unless people think that there is something to be gained by making it a vocabulary. For my own purposes, I think a glossary is fine. -Annette -- Annette Greiner NERSC Data and Analytics Services Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 510-495-2935
Received on Friday, 5 December 2014 15:24:08 UTC