• Discuss what specific next steps the CTWG can help with
• Nicky said that the project is entering its last month
• It is currently maintaining its glossary as part of a Google doc
• They are currently referencing two mental models: Parties, Actors, and Actions; and Jurisdictions
• Nicky's first question is whether the YOMA glossary could pull in the terms from those mental models
  
  • Rieks Joosten suggested that the documents may need revising depending on the definitions of the terms.
• Nicky's second question was about how to use tags
  • She was wondering about using tags to delimit text in a governance framework that could be machine-readable governance instructions.
  • Drummond Reed distinguished between tags used to select terms from one or more terms wikis for inclusion in a glossary vs. using tags to mark up a governance framework document for sections that may be machine-readable (or including in a machine-readable governance framework).

• Michel Plante raised this question in Slack
• What is our thinking on if, how, and when we could tackle this?
• Michel is part of another working group is Canada, the CIO council, that is responsible for publishing standards in Canada. 
• Relative to identity, the first standard relative to Digital Identity, that includes a glossary.
• In Canada, all official documents must be published in English and French.
  • When you see a term in an official document, the definition would be in both languages.
• All of those subgroups of the CIO Council must also create their own glossaries.
• So Michel is very interested in whether our terms wikis capabilities could include support for multiple languages.
• There was a very good discussion in Slack about this topic.
• Michel and one other person are proposing a larger glossary a standard itself. Data Governance, Ethical AI, Digital Identity—all could be combined into one larger glossary effort.
• They would start by extracting terms published in different identity standards, then identifying what needs to be modified.
• The full glossary would just become a national standard.
• Daniel Hardman said that we've always assumed this would be a feature—the need to understand how equivalent terms in another languages relate.
  • What we hadn't tackled yet was the tooling that would be necessary. For example, would both glossaries need to be done together.
• Rieks Joosten agreed with Daniel. Having the technical ability to have support definitions in a different language is relatively straightforward.
  • However Rieks is a member of the ISO 27000 security standards and they have had long debates about certain terms (e.g., "risk") that have not reached consensus.
  • So his worried that it could be very difficult to get broader consensus on some terms—the Tower of Babel story.
  • The tools we are creating here are designed to help understand by what some party means by a term.
  • However Rieks believes it is worth discussing with the CIO Council what they need.
  • Michel believed that the terms wiki concept of scopes should address that. They want to have terms that map directly across the two languages. To the extent that different governing parties have different definitions for a term in a different scope, that could work.
• Daniel Hardman noted that his first job out of college was as a professional terminologist. The company he worked for needed to publish manuals in 11 languages. They would pick a term in each language would map across to the same meaning. The intent is to keep the labels for the terms mapped to the same definition. That is different than having different stakeholder groups define their own meaning for a term.
  • Rieks Joosten agreed with Daniel's analysis. A group of stakeholders trying to reach the same meaning for a set of terms in different languages is a different situation than stakeholders that want to define their own meanings for a term.
• Judith Fleenor clarified her understanding of terms wikis enabling a term to have a different definition in a different scope vs. a single terms wiki having a translation of a term to a different language. In that case, the language might be considered just a terms wiki.
• Michel clarified that BOTH capabilities are needed—a term COULD have different definitions AND each one can be defined in two languages.
• Rieks clarified that a terms wiki is a place that a stakeholder group ("governing party") defines its own terms and then can produce glossaries that includes those terms PLUS terms from other terms wikis. Therefore different groups could produce different glossaries than show how they use terms.
• Daniel clarified that the 
• ACTION: Drummond Reed Rieks Joosten Daniel Hardman Michel Plante to prepare an analysis of what modifications to our terms wiki workplan to support defining a term in more than one language.

Chairs

• See this Google doc: Terms Wikis Production Workplan
• See this markdown doc: CTWG User Guide.
  • Rieks Joosten prefers this option because we can "eat our own dogfood". This way we can use our own tooling.
  • Daniel Hardman is also okay with that choice because he lives in Github. 
  • Drummond Reed is good with it for both of the above reasons.