• Nicky said that the YOMA ecosystem governance framework 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: (1) tags used to select terms from one or more terms wikis for inclusion in a glossary vs. (2) using tags to mark up a governance framework document for sections that may be machine-readable (or including in a machine-readable governance framework).
  • We clarified that (1) is in scope for the CTWG and (2) is not—although it may be in scope for the Governance Stack WG.

• Michel Plante had raised the question in Slack of whether we are ready to consider multilingual terms wikis, i.e., terms wikis that define the same concept—and the term(s) associated with it—in more than one language.
• Michel explained that he is part of a working group in Canada, the CIO Council, that is responsible for publishing standards in Canada. 
• One of the first standards, Digital Identity, 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 must be in both languages.
• Other subgroups of the CIO Council must also create their own glossaries, e.g., Data Governance, Ethical AI.
• 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 that the larger resulting glossary—actually a dictionary—could become a standard in itself. Data Governance, Ethical AI, Digital Identity—all of these could be combined into one larger dictionary effort.
• This effort would start by extracting terms published in different identity standards, then identifying what needs to be modified.
• The full glossary would become a Canadian national standard.
• Daniel Hardman said that we've always assumed that multi-language support 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 pointed out that, as a member of the ISO 27000 security standard group, they have had long debates about certain terms (e.g., "risk") that have not reached consensus after years of work.
  • 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 others 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 different "labels" for the concept in different languages 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 separate language might be considered just another 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 terms community can define 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 this is indeed how the ToIP Term Tool is designed to work.
• ACTION: Drummond Reed Rieks Joosten Daniel Hardman Michel Plante to prepare an analysis of what modifications to our terms wiki work plan will be necessary to support defining a term in more than one language. Drummond will start a Slack thread to discuss.

Chairs

• See this Google doc: Terms Wikis Production Workplan
• See this markdown doc: CTWG User Guide.
• We were running short on time, however we were able to have a quick discussion about this. 
  • Rieks Joosten prefer the Markdown option because we can "eat our own dogfood". This way we can use our own tooling in the User Guide.
  • Daniel Hardman is also okay with that choice because he lives in Github. His only worry is how easy it will be for other non-GitHub savvy contributors.
  • Drummond Reed is good with the Markdown option  for both of the above reasons. In addition, he believes the CTWG can enable non-GitHub and/or non-Markdown-savvy contributors to contribute using their choice of text editor which then another CTWG volunteer can convert into Markdown.
• DECISION: We will draft the CTWG User Guide in Markdown in the GitHub document that Rieks Joosten has started.

• ACTION: Drummond Reed to start threads in the ToIP #concepts-terminology-wg Slack channel to work through open issues we need to close to complete the User Manual and ToIP Term Tool V1 in order to advance terms wikis into full production.