Date
Attendees
- Rieks Joosten
- David Luchuk
- Scott Whitmire
- Steven Milstein
Goals
- Establish the GitHub foundation for our CTWG work
Agenda
| Time | Item | Who | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 mins | Welcome & Introductions | Chairs | |
| 5 mins | Review of Action Items | Chairs | |
| 5 mins | Update on eSSIF-Lab terminology work | ||
| 15 mins | GitHub strategy & coordination with Operations Team | ||
| 15 mins | Ingestion of external glossaries/vocabularies | ||
| 5 mins | Next meeting | Chairs |
Notes
- Action items from last meeting
- All PRs were merged
- David Luchuk and Steven Milstein are coordinating with the Ops Team
- Rieks Joosten wrote an analysis of Glossarist and posted
- It looks like a good tool, however as a tool it is fit for purpose specifically for ISO's work
- It is designed to do glossaries in multiple languages
- Rieks Joosten
Action items
- Rieks Joostenwill copy his Glossarist report to this Notes page for retention
Posterity
What Can `Glossarist` Do For ToIP?
`Glossarist`, the tool, seems to be specifically designed for the purpose to support ISO/TC211 as it operates geo-terminology according to the ISO 19135 procedures, the result of which is ISO/TC211 Geolexica. In order to determine its use for ToIP, we can first compare this result with e.g. the Sovrin glossary, the NIST glossary, the eSSIF-Lab glossary, or the Legal Dictionary (disregarding the actual content, just looking at the kinds of data that are there), determine what it is we would need and actually use, and take it from there.
You need to make a github repo for your work (as easy as copying a template). It should be possible to bulk-import terms, but that usually requires some conversion. You can ask for help in an issue, but the dev team is < 2 people... Alternatively, you type in your terms in a desktop application. I don’t know how the generation process works, but ISO/TC211 seems to have done it.
ISO/TC211 also seems to be its only user. They seem to be in line with our thinking on terms/concepts, and acknowledge that different contexts may use different terms for (almost) the same concept. They are pondering about extending the tool with relations between concepts, but it hasn’t materialized in the produced result. Possibly because of the small dev team and that there’s work to be done: the desktop tool loses my edits, but perhaps that is because I do not know how it works and the documentation doesn’t help me there.
Conclusion: I do not think this is a tool that we should start using, primarily because it doesn’t produce results that I think ToIP users would be looking for, and also because I think it takes some experimentation on CTWG side to create the specifications of the artifacts we would like to generate.
Rieks