W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > February 2015

RE: the need for a glossary

From: Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:42:48 +0000
To: Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, "SDW WG (public-sdw-wg@w3.org)" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <24637769D123E644A105A0AF0E1F92EFFAC7A38C@dnbf-ex1.AD.DDB.DE>

*** Lesen. Hören. Wissen. Deutsche Nationalbibliothek ***
Dr. Lars G. Svensson
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
Informationsinfrastruktur und Bestanderhaltung
Adickesallee 1
D-60322 Frankfurt am Main
Telefon: +49-69-1525-1752
Telefax: +49-69-1525-1799

From: Linda van den Brink [mailto:l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 8:44 AM
To: SDW WG (public-sdw-wg@w3.org)
Subject: RE: the need for a glossary


Van: Thiago José Tavares Ávila [mailto:thiago.avila@ic.ufal.br]
Verzonden: vrijdag 20 februari 2015 0:56
Aan: Frans Knibbe | Geodan
CC: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Onderwerp: Re: the need for a glossary


The glossary will optimize our time to align concepts and will enrich the documentation of our working group.

I agree with this proposal.


Em quinta-feira, 19 de fevereiro de 2015, Frans Knibbe | Geodan <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl<mailto:frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>> escreveu:
Hello everyone,

Following yesterdays teleconference, I think it would be a good idea to create a glossary page on the wiki, with concise definitions of the terms we use in communication. We operate in a confluence of two domains, so there is a risk of not fully understanding each other's jargon. Besides that, we want to be clear towards external interested people, who can have very different backgrounds.

What we certainly want to avoid is thinking that we are talking about the same thing when in fact we are not!

Two examples come to mind:

When discussing spatial information, I once was involved in a long and headache inducing discussion about whether a geographical name is a feature (a 'feature' is a very basic concept in the OGC world). It was rather hard to find the place in the OGC standards where the feature concept is defined, but still that did not resolve the issue.

Another discussion I took part in was taking place in the Linked Data domain. It involved a basic concept of the semantic web, the 'resource'. It was apparent that the concept is hard to grasp for some people, and that it is somewhat open to interpretation. Especially with the distinction between an 'information resource' and a 'non information resource', and a definition that has changed somewhat over time.

If we agree that having a glossary page is a good idea I would be happy to start one and put 'spatial feature' and 'spatial context' on it.

A side effect would be that we will have URLs for definitions that can be used on other web pages.


Frans Knibbe
President Kennedylaan 1
1079 MB Amsterdam (NL)

T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347
E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','frans.knibbe@geodan.nl');>
www.geodan.nl<http://www.geodan.nl> | disclaimer<http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer>
Received on Monday, 23 February 2015 08:43:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:15 UTC