- From: Mcgibbney, Lewis J (398M) <Lewis.J.Mcgibbney@jpl.nasa.gov>
- Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 15:26:38 +0000
- To: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>, DWBP Public List <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
+1 Dr. Lewis John McGibbney PhD, B.Sc., MAGU Engineering Applications Software Engineer Level 2 Computer Science for Data Intensive Systems Group 398M Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology 4800 Oak Grove Drive Pasadena, California 91109-8099 Mail Stop : 158-256C Tel: (+1) (818)-393-7402 Cell: (+1) (626)-487-3476 Fax: (+1) (818)-393-1190 Email: lewis.j.mcgibbney@jpl.nasa.gov Dare Mighty Things On 12/5/14, 7:22 AM, "Annette Greiner" <amgreiner@lbl.gov> wrote: >Hi folks, >During this morningšs 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 15:27:12 UTC