W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-poiwg@w3.org > October 2010

Re: POI WG Terminology Wiki

From: Jens de Smit <jens.desmit@surfnet.nl>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:00:45 +0200
Message-ID: <4CC7F84D.9030600@surfnet.nl>
To: gary.gale@nokia.com
CC: public-poiwg@w3.org, member-poiwg@w3.org
On 26/10/2010 17:32, gary.gale@nokia.com wrote:
> Very much a first cut, I've started the Terminology page on the Wiki at http://www.w3.org/2010/POI/wiki/Terminology
> 
> ... I've taken as inspiration the terms used in the first meeting and based the terminology set on those terms. Please feel free to edit, amend, add and cull as you all see fit.

Hi,

I've started getting my feet wet with this as well, but I've got two
things I wanted to discuss with you concerning the terminology.

The first thing is to answer Christine's earlier question (paraphrased
below):

What is the purpose of the terminology (glossary, etc) which is being
compiled? (a) A terminology for use within the POI working group or (b)
a terminology for the broader communities i.e., multiple communities who
need to communicate *with one another and internally* in a clear fashion
about Augmented Reality and contextual services?

I'd say we go with notion (a) and compile a terminology/glossary for use
within the POI WG. We can do (b) in the follow-up of the AR standards
workshop in Seoul (see here
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0As8Gui74DrCDdHcyUU1WS0NGc2V6RC13YzFCUVBaUVE&hl=en#gid=0
and here http://www.perey.com/ARStandardsMeetingOutputs.html ), using of
course the output from said workshop as well as already available and
mentioned glossaries (OGC, the budding POI WG Terminology, others?)



The second thing is on the process of defining "unclear" terms. Do we
edit back and forth the Wiki page in WikiPedia tug-o-war-like fashion,
do we have e-mail discussions over this, do we converge on a definition
during the weekly call or something else?

I would propose, whenever you are unsure if your definition is shared by
the group you start an e-mail thread to try and get consensus.
Similarly, if you see a definition on the wiki that you do not agree
with (or do not understand), share it with the group. However, if you
think you've identified a term whose meaning is clear enough, do not
refrain from editing the wiki proactively to avoid unnecessary
communications. Perhaps we could do a monthly review where everybody
glances over the additions and edits to see if we need to reconsider
something.



So that's two proposals, share your thoughts :)


Regards,

Jens
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 10:01:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:48:26 UTC