Meeting Date
Zoom Meeting Link / Recording
Attendees
Main Goal of this Meeting
Review our mental model for terminology and agree on next steps for putting the ToIP Core terms wiki into production.
Agenda Items and Notes (including all relevant links)
| Time | Agenda Item | Lead | Notes |
| 5 min | - Start recording
- Welcome & antitrust notice
- Introduction of new members
- Agenda review
| Chairs | - 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 min | Review of previous action items | Chairs | - ACTION: Rieks Joosten and Daniel Hardman to arrange a meeting to discuss how this hyperlinking should work with ToIP Term Tool V1 and our current terms wikis.
- ACTION: Rieks to incorporate feedback and publish revisions to his mental model diagram for the relationship of CTWG terminology and ToIP terminology.
- ACTION: ALL to review and comment on Rieks' draft proposal defining the objectives, ingestion policies, and curation policies for the ToIP terms community.
- ACTION: ALL to review the ISO Guide to IT Terminology.
- Rieks noted that it will highlight the same challenges we are dealing with the CTWG.
|
| 5 min | Update on hyperlinking format discussion | | Report on the outcome of the first action item above. - Daniel Hardman reported that Rieks Joosten came up with a proposal for how hyperlinking can work both inside and outside a particular community.
- If an author uses this convention, it will be a broken hyperlink until the ToIP Term Tool is updated to support it.
- So the conclusion was that we will adopt the convention as soon as the tooling supports it.
- Rieks added that this is not yet the highest priority, but that we will work towards it.
|
| 5 min | Update on ToIP Term Tool progress | Daniel Hardman | Daniel reported that he has finished the glossary term selection ("tagged subsets") feature for the ToIP Term Tool V1. - That plus the features below complete the V1.
- So the choice of someone authoring documents today is:
- Documents can use the current hyperlinking format and the links will work.
- The next version of the ToIP Term Tool will be designed for the longer-term hyperlinking format.
Rieks added these points: - The one danger that he's concerned about is that communities will start to use the terms wikis but that they are not the actual corpus that can be curated.
- So we still have work to do to form the full corpus that can be curated.
Scott Perry shared: - We need each deliverable to starting documenting their terms in a terms wiki.
- Each ToIP WG should have a member of this WG so that we are all working together on terminology.
Rieks responded: - Ideally, hyperlinks in documents will be to terms in a glossary, not to terms in a terms wiki which are dynamic.
- This will be less of a maintenance burden because the glossary will have been curated, vs. the terms wiki content which is intended to be ingested.
- RE having multiple WGs contribute members to the CTWG, we also want to support decentralized curation.
Daniel's notes from Slack: - I have turned on glossary publication for the
toip-terms repo and the ctwg-terms repo. This means our first two glossaries are live (published). You can see the results here: - The actions that build these glossaries are one-click, but they need to be manually re-run for now; they don’t automatically run when a wiki page is updated. That’s a future enhancement. (@Rieks Joosten: I remember that we wanted to rename these repos, removing the “-terms” part of the name. I haven’t done that yet, but it will be trivial as soon as the CTWG approves.)
- The process I used to do this work is documented here:
- I think we need to move this documentation somewhere else, but I can’t remember where off the top of my head, and I’m now off to other tasks for a while. Feel free to move yourself — or I’ll come back and do it when I remember.
|
| 15 min | Decision on ToIP Core terms wiki process |
| Rieks Joosten proposal (from our Slack channel): I suggest that we enable toip-groups to add terminology stuff to their existing repo's, requiring them to: - specify a location (URL) where they publish (rendered) documents (papers, documentation, ...), by default at
trustoverip.github.io/reponame, which would include trustoverip.github.io/reponame/glossary for its (rendered) glossary. This allows people to quickly find stuff, and authors of GDocs, Confluence pages and the like will have stable URLs to link to. We should start out by ONLY using the default location. - specify a location where they maintain the 'raw docs' from which they render the stuff, by default at
github.com/trustoverip/reponame/docs. This allows people to contribute to the groups documents by means of issues and pull requests to the repo. We should start out by ONLY using the default location. - specify a location where they curate their terminology, from which they produce their 'raw glossary' (putting the result in the 'docs' folder, which is subsequently rendered and published as a usable glossary), by default in the subdirectory
docs/terms of the repo. This allows people to contribute to the group's terminology by means of issues and pull requests. We should start out by ONLY using the default location. - consider using the wiki of the repo as a terms-wiki like we do now.
- consider some practical conventions for facilitating group members to contribute to the development of their terminology, e.g. by making specific issue-labels and/or templates. This would be (near-)future work.
- read the documents (such as which you are drafting) that support repo admins in doing terminology. Of course, the 'raw text' would then reside at github.com/trustoverip/ctwg/docs, and it would be viewable at trustoverip.github.io/ctwg/doc-id. That would be the link that could be linked to from confluence pages, GDocs, etc.
Daniel Hardman's counter-proposal: - Rename the current repos that have
-terms in their name into the name without that suffix: ctwg-terms becomes ctwg, for example. This would mean we would have a glossary published at https://trustoverip.github.io/ctwg/glossary.html. A permalink. I am in favor of this proposal but want the WG to ratify it. An analogous URL, with a different group name, would be the canonical location for any group within TOIP. - Accept the limitation that the glossary URL has to end in .html.
- Implement your suggestions 1 and 2 and 5 and 6 as written.
- Unlike your #4, require a terms wiki. We have no tooling that supports anything else, and we have no plans to produce any such tooling.
Daniel adds: I have now enabled automatic glossary generation on terms wiki edit, so any time someone changes a page in the terms wiki for either of the active repos, the glossary is automatically rebuilt (on about a 60-second delay). |
| 10 min | Review Rieks' updated mental model for Terminology | Rieks Joosten | See the Terminology Pattern on the eSSIF-Lab site. The mental model diagram is also copied below as #1. The text also refers to the (updated) Notations and Conventions. - Drummond Reed has a question as to whether "terms community" is needed or whether "community" by itself would be sufficient
|
| 10 min | Update on Rieks' proposed ToIP Core terminology process | Rieks Joosten | See the ToIP Core Terminology Management Process section of the ToIP Core terms wiki README.md |
| 5 mins | - Review decisions/action items
- Plan for next meeting
| Drummond Reed | Discuss concrete next steps for putting the ToIP Core terms wiki into production. - The Governance Stack WG is ready to start adding terms.
|
Screenshots/Diagrams (numbered for reference in notes above)
#1 — eSSIF-Lab Terminology Pattern. We use the following notations and conventions.
The figure itself is not a complete representation of the model - the texts in the section 'formalized model' must also be considered. One of the reasons is that some constraints of the formalized model cannot be represented in the figure. Here are two exmples:
- "A term that is part of a given scope refers to precisely one definition and the single concept that this definition defines." So a single term can refer to different definitions/concepts, but only within different scopes. Within a scope, there is no ambiguity of terms.
- "If a definition is part of a scope, then there is a terminology that is part of that scope, and it contains a term that refers to this definition". Loosely rephrased: "All definitions in a scope are part of its terminology". And consequently: additional terms may exist in a terminology that refer to definitions outside the scope (as well as within the scope, e.g. enabling aliasing for its own definitions).
Decisions
Action Items
