Any news and updates of general interest to CTWG members

• Henk van Cann thought IIW is great event. Role of KERI and ACDC is taking up. Presentation of terminology by Drummond Reed and Brian Richter was also good with lots of positive feedback. Curation of terms and glossaries raises questions: can we know who is behind a glossary curation? That could be relevant to discuss here. 
• More rigor in terminology is also needed in contexts where ontologies are being standardized (for data interoperability). TNO will be integrating the TEv2 work in Semantic Treehouse (an open source tool for implementation and management of data message standards)
• Drummond Reed said there was much more discussion of governance at this IIW. He gave a shout out to a recent presentation that Darrell O'Donnell gave to the EFWG on governance and ecosystem development.
• Henk van Cann asked about provenance of terms ie authors of particular terms rather than entire glossaries.
• Rieks Joosten asked: why ask this question?  Surely either the criteria and the term either work for you or not, but in our terminology way of thinking, you just change the definition to something that works for you 
• Henk van Cann the reason is 'reputation' e.g. if Sam Smith is the curator of a term then this might be more acceptable than someone with a different reputation.
• Rieks Joosten in a terminology repository as specified in Engine V2 - there is a difference between curation (in scope administration), nothing at the moment for contributions for individual terms but as the Spec allows extensions this could be easily added.  If Human Readable Glossary could cater for this also.
• Drummond Reed one major aspect of provenance is how a term has evolved. Thus references to specific versions of a term are very relevant here, which leads us to etymology.
• Rieks Joosten commented that raising this subject suggests folks are understanding what we're working on and that it makes sense.
• He also noted that the Dutch version of ISO is needing terminology tools, and they want to integrate our tooling as soon as they are ready.
• Nicky Hickman has a background in history, and etymology plays a big role in how concepts and terms get introduced into a culture. This is important as digital trust ecosystems are sociotechnical systems.

• ACTION: Nicky Hickman to add HXWG terms to the ToIP Glossary Workspace
• ACTION: Drummond Reed will look for sets of questions about clusters of terms in the ToIP Glossary Workspace that may be candidates for mental models.

Drummond Reed Brian Richter 

From Slack:

As promised, Brian and I held a session on the last day of IIW called “ToIP Glossary”. We had about 20 attendees. The first half of the session I spent showing the public ToIP Glossary Google doc, which Nicky Hickman and I finished upgrading from the earlier “dictionary” approach (allowing multiple definitions per term) to a strict glossary structure (one definition per term — although when we had more than one definition for a term, we kept the others as “supporting definitions”. It now has ~350 terms, roughly 8% of which are acronyms. The second half of the session was Brian showing his code for the TEv2 engine.

Drummond Reed re-tracked the process for the transforming the workspace from dictionary to glossary. Now >350 terms.

Henk van Cann commented that >500 terms in the KERI glossary hope to use tools to do it, expect common terms to have different meanings - aim would be to automatically link and relate to it.  Using Google Sheet to add metadata to glossary we have - ie Github wiki method on our own repo. Have human friendly tools to make it relevant to the user (e.g. beginner might filter out more complex terms)

In the KERI Suite glossary we use an intermediate datasheet to add metadata to the terms:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18IUa-1NSJ_8Tz_2D-VSuSQa_yf3ES1s_hovitm3Clvc/edit#gid=209150977r

Rieks Joosten you are considering and comparing terms, e.g. if using different criteria then may have same term for different concepts, comparing between scopes enables you to learn a lot because it tells you about how the different communities conceptualise the world.  We can progress this in different ways 1) Daniel Hardman 's work, now progressing with Brian Richter 's work to go to V2 

1) Ingress tool ingests texts to convert to 'curated texts', currently debating limits of what we can ask humans to do.  So considering a few wiki pages that could be on your own repo, so that we could play around with wiki pages to see how they could be converted to curated texts and from there we can create the glossaries

2) creating human readable glossary tool.  TEV2 also has ambition to create both a glossary and a dictionary.  Vision is that we will have a machine readable dictionary tool where you could pick and choose terms from different scopes.  Still unfunded and tech requirements analysis needs doing. Should not be too hard. In machine readable glossary tool we can already pick terms from different scopes and human readable version could do the same thing.   This configurable quality for each entry suggests these comparisons could be easy to make.   If you want to compare terms in a different group tags (relates to mental models ) and use this as a selection criteria.

Henk van Cann like the grouping, ability to filter according to scope, own mental model - could create a defined glossary for a specific goal / vs scope.  Want to be able to move quickly.

Rieks Joosten Brian Richter 

Brian reported that he and Rieks have had several calls since the IIW session. There are a few more tasks that Brian needs to complete on the ingress side. On the human-readable glossary side, there is not too much more to do. Markdown and images are on the list. 

Overall, there is a pretty good plan going forward.

ACTION: Brian Richter and Rieks Joosten to proceed with TEv2 tooling development and report at the next meeting.

Drummond Reed pointed out the cluster terms he added to the ToIP Glossary Workspace document. This had two purposes:

1. Give new readers of the ToIP Glossary a set of good "starting points" for exploring the 350+ terms.
2. Suggest the terms that are in most need of mental models.

Drummond Reed asked: How should we proceed with review of the ToIP Glossary within other ToIP Working Group and Task Forces?

The sense of the group was that we should visit individual WG's and TF's and ask the following questions:

1. What do YOU NEED from our glossary work?

2. Are your key terms in here and are the definitions 'right' for the concepts?

3. Which parts of the glossary work are (therefore) useful to you?

4. Which parts are not, and what makes them so? How could we make it work for you?

Nicky Hickman suggested that we also need to look at the parts of speech represented in the glossary. She experimented with an Annexe in the ToIP Glossary document for the word "verify".

Rieks Joosten noted that the noun "subject" is actual a relation! Without an object, there is no subject! That's why the definition says, "subject (of an identifier)". The same is true for other nouns for actions, such as "hit". So it would be good to identify the nouns that a particular verb relates.