You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 5 Next »

Date

Attendees

Goals

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes
5 minWelcome & IntroductionsChairs
5 minsInserting terms into GitHubDan Gisolfi
 10 minUpdate on ESSIF-Labs C&T Project  Rieks
10 minPossibility of using Glossarist?Drummond
20 minGitHub strategy & coordination with
Operations Team		Chairs & Dave
10 minAny other businessAll
5 minsNext meetingAll

Notes

  1. Dan Gisolfi reported that there are three pull requests against our Concepts and Terminology repo.
    1. Dan Gisolfisubmitted the terms from Bedrock
    2. Daniel Hardman submitted the terms from the Sovrin Glossary
    3. Rieks Joosten submitted one for the ESSIF Lab terms
    4. Both of these use a baseline data model
    5. Now this gives us a set of raw terms
    6. The open questions are
      1. What additional metadata is needed in addition to these terms?
      2. What is our process for accepting these terms?
  2. Process questions
    1. How do we want to work through a process for approving terms?
      1. Dan proposes that any submission that's valid can become part of the corpus
      2. Daniel wants to make sure the process is lightweight and low friction
      3. Dan proposes that there may be overlapping terms and let us deal with this later on
      4. Scott Whitmire proposed that the source can come from any WG or TF within the Foundation and should not require "everyone to vote on everything"
      5. Paul Knowles wants the Semantic Domain WG to be able to prepare a glossary document
      6. RJ Reiser said he wants to do the same thing with the Technical Stack WG glossary, which he has volunteered to lead
      7. Dan Gisolfi proposed the lightest weight process that submitters can use
    2. Possible states for a submitted term
      1. Proposed
        1. A term someone in the community has suggested that has not had review by the CTWG yet
        2. All proposed terms are under review until the CTWG marks them as reviewed
      2. Reviewed
        1. Members of the CTWG had reviewed the term for well-formedness, that the tags are valid, etc.
      3. Approved
        1. The stakeholders who will be using this term have agreed to the content
        2. This stage involves feedback with the stakeholders
    3. Same term can have multiple meanings
    4. Daniel Hardman brought up the scenario of different stakeholders disagreeing on the status of a term, i.e., it is approved
      1. Paul Knowles asked about multiple definitions
  3. Coordination with the Ops Team
    1. Drummond Reedsaid 
    2. David Luchuk said that this would be a "tutorial" that the CTWG and the Ops Team would produce
  4. Daniel Hardman asked to merge his and Rieks PRs—APPROVED BY CONSENSUS
  5. Daniel Hardman asked to proceed with the ___________
  6. Paul Knowles asked about what the SDWG needs to get started with development of their glossary.

Action items

  •  
  • No labels