Re: followup to question about vocabularies and the glossary

Glossary is document dependent. Vocabularies OTOH should not be so.


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 16:48:01 UTC