Meeting Date


Zoom Meeting Link / Recording


Main Goal of this Meeting

Discuss Rieks' proposal (in this Slack message) for how to move forward with CTWG GitHub repos and the ToIP Term Tool.

Agenda Items and Notes (including all relevant links)

TimeAgenda ItemLeadNotes
3 min
  • Start recording
  • Welcome & antitrust notice
  • Introduction of new members
  • Agenda review
  • Antitrust Policy Notice: Attendees are reminded to adhere to the meeting agenda and not participate in activities prohibited under antitrust and competition laws. Only members of ToIP who have signed the necessary agreements are permitted to participate in this activity beyond an observer role.
  • New Members:
5 minGeneral announcementsAll

News and updates of general interest to CTWG members

Rieks Joosten announced that eSSIF-Lab has done new work on the GRC — Governance, Risk, and Compliance — mental model pattern. Comments are actively invited.

  • Also definitions have been added for the following, for which feedback is invited:
  • The first feedback is whether the proposed definitions are clear; and then whether they can be improved.
  • You can send feedback to Rieks in Slack or email—just copy any text you are commenting on.

Rieks also asked about the work on Learning Pathways for ToIP and whether it could be brought into CTWG.

  • Judith explained that the goal of "learning pathways" is to make ToIP deliverables more accessible to newcomers to ToIP.
  • They are intended to be added to our website, not the wiki.
  • They are also intended to be audience-specific (CTOs, developers, UX designers, policymakers).
  • This has become a deliverable of the Ecosystem Foundry Working Group.
  • Judith agreed that it would be ideal to have learning pathways for CTWG too.
2 minReview of previous action itemsChairs
  • ACTION: Drummond Reed and other volunteers to complete the "backfill" work of terms from the GSWG specifications that should be in the ToIP Core Glossary.
  • ACTION: CHAIRS to recruit one or more volunteers to complete the full V1 draft of the CTWG User Guide.
  • ACTION: Drummond Reed to put the ToIP Term Tool V2 topic on the agenda for the next meeting.
45 minProposal for repo organization and ToIP Term Tool V2Rieks Joosten

Last Thursday Rieks posted this Slack message. He agreed to make it the main topic for discussion on today's call:

@Drummond Reed @Daniel Hardman As I was looking into the user guide topic, I felt a bit confused, which I think originates from the level of (dis)organization of the 3 CTWG-related repos, their purposes (if specified), and their contents. I think we should discard what we no longer need.  What I think we do need is the following:

  • a template-repo that curators can instantiate and subsequently use to maintain the part of the Corpus that they curate. In my thinking, every Scope would be maintained in one repo (a Terms Repo), that is structured according to conventions that allow the stuff therein to be referenced and used across Term-Repo's = nicely 'decentralized'. Curators will use (predefined or self-defined) actions to construct their CI-pipeline for ingesting stuff; there SHOULD be a predefined action that can test the repo for structure etc. and that must succeed for a pull request to be merged.
  • a template-repo, instances of which will be used by terms communities for creating ingestible stuff. The template with wiki-pages could serve this purpose. On the long run, we could have different "flavors"
  • one repo in which CTWG maintains its documentation, which should include texts that document:
    • what CTWG does, and what not
    • the mental model(s) we use
    • how people can contribute to the ingestion phase
    • how curators can add ingestibles to the corpus
    • what artifacts (e.g. glossaries, dictionaries, ...) can be generated, and what curators should do to configure the specific kind of artifact they want to end up with.

I would like to discuss this and establish consensus on the (more detailed) way forward, of which I hope the result will be that CTWG and eSSIF-Lab ways of working will grow towards one another, which makes life easier for me.


  • Rieks Joosten explained that our development of terms wikis addresses primarily the ingestion stage of terminology.
  • But in going from a terms wiki to a glossary, we have challenges in terms of ongoing glossary management, stability of terms, references, etc.
  • We don't have a corpus of terminology yet. So this is the proposed next step: to accept input from multiple sources, including terms wikis, into the corpus. Then the ToIP Term Tool can work with the corpus to produce the necessary artifacts such as glossaries, dictionaries, and document markup.
  • Rieks suggests that we develop a standard repo setup (see screenshot #1 below) for a corpus that can produce pages in different outputs (see screenshot #2).
  • Every participating terms community (ToIP WG, TF, etc.) would have its own repo — just as it does today with a terms wiki — only it would be more fully functioning.
  • Rieks points out that any artifacts that the trust community produces that need to involve terminology can reference it from its glossary document.
  • Judith Fleenor asked about the overall repo structuring proposal in contrast with other GitHub repo structuring proposals that ToIP is considering.
  • Daniel Hardman said that he's not opposed to the idea of a richer type of terminology repo but wants to make sure that we are meeting the current needs of terms communities to use terms wikis and ToIP Term Tool V1 to meet their terminology needs.
  • Rieks shared this link to an issue in the eSSIF-Lab repo that describes his vision and explores the architecture and technical tasks necessary to achieve it. 
  • Rieks does not expect that this is a "one and done" project, but a steady evolution of a project.
  • ACTION: ALL INTERESTED CTWG MEMBERS to review this issue in the eSSIF-Lab repo to fully understand Rieks' proposal for terminology repos. Please post your feedback in the #concepts-terminology-wg Slack channel.
5 mins
  • Review decisions/action items
  • Planning for next meeting 
  • Next meeting: discuss the outcome of the action item above.

Screenshots/Diagrams (numbered for reference in notes above)




  • None.

Action Items

  • No labels