Meeting Date
- : ToIP Concepts and Terminology WG Bi-Weekly Meeting 10:00-11:00 PT / 17:00-18:00 UTC.
See the ToIP Calendar for the full schedule.
Zoom Meeting Link / Recording
Attendees
Agenda Items and Notes (including all relevant links)
Time | Agenda Item | Lead | Notes |
3 min |
| Chairs |
|
5 min | General announcements | All | Any news and updates of general interest to CTWG members: |
5 min | Review of previous action items | ||
5 min | Version management of Spec-up vs. version management of terminology |
| |
10 min | Terminology Governance Guide | Every meeting a new aspect to discuss and decide upon. https://trustoverip.github.io/ctwg-terminology-governance-guide/
| |
5 min | Spec-Up Use | Spec-Up tips & tricks As we have many specifications in flight I have been compiling some SpecUp tips & tricks
| |
20 min | ToIP Glossary & Spec-Up Proposal | Drummond posted the following proposal to Slack: Having started working with Spec-Up directly (to convert the ToIP Technology Architecture Specification into Spec-Up), I had a quick discussion with @Darrell O'Donnell (who is also now a regular Spec-Up user), and I have a new proposal for how to at least initially solve our “versioned links” challenge. This solution is premised on a key constraint of Spec-Up xrefs: every xref must reference a specific Spec-Up file containing the target term and definition.Given this constraint—plus the fact that as glossaries mature, they tend to evolve relatively slowly—my proposal is to combine several of our previous proposals as follows:
This seems like a practical solution that will meet all our requirements, i.e., individual terms can be edited independently via GitHub, and then full ToIP Glossary versions can be generated, but only quarterly (and even then, only if needed). We can maintain a CTWG wiki page with the permalinks to each published version. Even in 10 years (by which time things would have almost certainly have evolved), it would only have a maximum of 40 links on the list. Rieks Joosten replied: I second this proposal. It may be worth considering to have the individual files comply with the TEv2 specifications for curated texts. From that, it would be easy to create a Spec-Up to create an updated version of the ToIP Glossary as Drummond proposes in his point 1. And it would simultaneously pave the way for those wanting to use the TEv2 toolsuite, e.g., to refer to terms in the TEv2-way, or to generate all sorts of human-readable glossaries. That is because I think that a ToIP Glossary as Drummond proposes is the Spec-Up simile of the TEv2 machine-readable glossary, which would then be generatable from the TEv2 tools. Henk van Cann replied: I support the approach as long as we try to:
The reason I'd like to stick to these constraints is:
At least for the time being I'd also like to focus on implementing [Drummond's point 3](https://trustoverip.slack.com/archives/C01BBNGRPUH/p1716356848969529) with my constraints above. I'm convinced it's possible to offer functionality that creates and manages snapshots with git and github and at the same time avoids "hell", as Darrell described it a few weeks ago. Drummond's Point 2 is not Kor's design - nor mine; that'd be too much honour. One term per file stems from TEv1, Wiki-based term defs, and TEv2. The Spec-Up based ToIP main glossary took a different turn: one file, many terms. We now only try to bring the one-term-per-file principle back in Spec-Up-based source management of term defs and (x)refs, plus the consecutive generation of specification documents, glossaries and dictionaries. The fundamental building block associated with this is "one term per file" with an unbroken strain of commit hashes all the way back through its relevant history. | |
5 min | ToIP Glossary Open Items | Drummond Reed | Drummond needs to start making edits to the ToIP Glossary Spec-Up file. |
2 mins |
| Chairs |
Screenshots/Diagrams (numbered for reference in notes above)
#1
#2
#3