Re: followup to question about vocabularies and the glossary

I think a brief mention in the intro could be good.

Sent from a keyboard-challenged device

> On Dec 12, 2014, at 12:35 AM, Christophe Guéret <christophe.gueret@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> About the need for something else I was just thinking that it could be good to keep the BP template we currently have at the end of the document and use it as a reading guideline for the reader.
> We could move it to the definitions, or close to the introduction, and update a bit the text in it so that the reader sees what each part of the BP answers.
> 
> +1 ?
> 
> Best regards,
> Christophe
> 
> ----
> Researcher
> +31(0)6 14576494
> christophe.gueret@dans.knaw.nl
> Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS/KNAW) - http://dans.knaw.nl/
> e-Humanities Group (KNAW) - http://www.ehumanities.nl/
> Let's build a World Wide Semantic Web! - http://worldwidesemanticweb.org/
> 
> 
>> On Thu, 11 Dec, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov> wrote:
>> +1
>> --
>> Annette Greiner
>> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>> 510-495-2935
>> 
>>> On Dec 5, 2014, at 8:59 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br> wrote:
>>> 
>>> In my opinion, I think we just need some definitions to help the understanding of the document, like definitions for dataset, resource, vocabulary, ontology...or do we need something else ?
>>> 
>>> cheers,
>>> Bernadette
>>> 
>>> 2014-12-05 13:47 GMT-03:00 Mcgibbney, Lewis J (398M) <Lewis.J.Mcgibbney@jpl.nasa.gov>:
>>>> 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 morning¹s 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
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Bernadette Farias Lóscio
>>> Centro de Informática
>>> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>