Hello ID Pros, I want to get behind the ideas of a taxonomy and a glossary, and propose that they are two views of the same thing – a high quality glossary should explain how terms interrelate, resulting in a taxonomy of relationships. Contrary to Andrew Hughes’s point about glossaries, not all branching structures are ratholes, some of them are ontologies. I agree with him that it can be challenging to come to consensus but not everything worth doing is easy. Having a jargon is inevitable in any profession, but if we’re trying to be transparent and welcoming, we should document our jargon in some form. Yes, there are existing compilations of terminologies from various industry standards and documents, but they lack coherence of meaning or context, and if they were helpful to newcomers we wouldn’t be having the conversation. A rough work plan for a project would be for members to contribute their favorite lexicons, glossaries and taxonomies, then aggregate, de-duplicate and fill gaps. Aim for a language with which to express the body of knowledge – hopefully with much of the basic knowledge captured in the relationship between the terms. My $0.02USD, Scott
Hi Scott +1 from me! I would even propse to do that using vocabularies or even ontologies (https://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/ontology) my € 0,02EUR T. On 04.11.2016 15:59, Scott Shorter wrote:
Hello ID Pros,
I want to get behind the ideas of a taxonomy and a glossary, and propose that they are two views of the same thing – a high quality glossary should explain how terms interrelate, resulting in a taxonomy of relationships. Contrary to Andrew Hughes’s point about glossaries, not all branching structures are ratholes, some of them are ontologies. I agree with him that it can be challenging to come to consensus but not everything worth doing is easy.
Having a jargon is inevitable in any profession, but if we’re trying to be transparent and welcoming, we should document our jargon in some form. Yes, there are existing compilations of terminologies from various industry standards and documents, but they lack coherence of meaning or context, and if they were helpful to newcomers we wouldn’t be having the conversation.
A rough work plan for a project would be for members to contribute their favorite lexicons, glossaries and taxonomies, then aggregate, de-duplicate and fill gaps. Aim for a language with which to express the body of knowledge – hopefully with much of the basic knowledge captured in the relationship between the terms.
My $0.02USD,
Scott
_______________________________________________ DG-IDPro mailing list DG-IDPro@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idpro
+1 Scott I also think that capturing the bibliography created by the submissions has value. We are missing finding aids in general... (I won't address the maintenance point) On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 8:44 AM Thorsten H. Niebuhr [WedaCon GmbH] < tniebuhr@wedacon.net> wrote:
Hi Scott
+1 from me!
I would even propse to do that using vocabularies or even ontologies ( https://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/ontology)
my € 0,02EUR
T.
On 04.11.2016 15:59, Scott Shorter wrote:
Hello ID Pros,
I want to get behind the ideas of a taxonomy and a glossary, and propose that they are two views of the same thing – a high quality glossary should explain how terms interrelate, resulting in a taxonomy of relationships. Contrary to Andrew Hughes’s point about glossaries, not all branching structures are ratholes, some of them are ontologies. I agree with him that it can be challenging to come to consensus but not everything worth doing is easy.
Having a jargon is inevitable in any profession, but if we’re trying to be transparent and welcoming, we should document our jargon in some form. Yes, there are existing compilations of terminologies from various industry standards and documents, but they lack coherence of meaning or context, and if they were helpful to newcomers we wouldn’t be having the conversation.
A rough work plan for a project would be for members to contribute their favorite lexicons, glossaries and taxonomies, then aggregate, de-duplicate and fill gaps. Aim for a language with which to express the body of knowledge – hopefully with much of the basic knowledge captured in the relationship between the terms.
My $0.02USD,
Scott
_______________________________________________ DG-IDPro mailing listDG-IDPro@kantarainitiative.orghttp://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idpro
_______________________________________________ DG-IDPro mailing list DG-IDPro@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idpro
-- *Andrew Hughes *CISM CISSP Independent Consultant *In Turn Information Management Consulting* o +1 650.209.7542 m +1 250.888.9474 1249 Palmer Road, Victoria, BC V8P 2H8 AndrewHughes3000@gmail.com ca.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-hughes/a/58/682/ *Identity Management | IT Governance | Information Security *
Not everyone would agree, but basing on ISO terminology might be a good idea. ISO documents are not freely available in general, but their terms and vocabularies are. Those terms are constructed with well disciplined principle and are the result of hundreds of man hours of work so leveraging on it sounds like a good idea. Downside is that sometimes these definitions are not the same as what a general practitioners use. In many cases, the "general use" was not precise enough and often conflicting so they had to depart from the usual usages. Nat On 2016-11-05 03:56, Andrew Hughes wrote:
+1 Scott
I also think that capturing the bibliography created by the submissions has value.
We are missing finding aids in general...
(I won't address the maintenance point)
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 8:44 AM Thorsten H. Niebuhr [WedaCon GmbH] <tniebuhr@wedacon.net> wrote:
Hi Scott
+1 from me!
I would even propse to do that using vocabularies or even ontologies (https://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/ontology [2])
my € 0,02EUR
T.
On 04.11.2016 15:59, Scott Shorter wrote:
Hello ID Pros,
I want to get behind the ideas of a taxonomy and a glossary, and propose that they are two views of the same thing – a high quality glossary should explain how terms interrelate, resulting in a taxonomy of relationships. Contrary to Andrew Hughes’s point about glossaries, not all branching structures are ratholes, some of them are ontologies. I agree with him that it can be challenging to come to consensus but not everything worth doing is easy.
Having a jargon is inevitable in any profession, but if we’re trying to be transparent and welcoming, we should document our jargon in some form. Yes, there are existing compilations of terminologies from various industry standards and documents, but they lack coherence of meaning or context, and if they were helpful to newcomers we wouldn’t be having the conversation.
A rough work plan for a project would be for members to contribute their favorite lexicons, glossaries and taxonomies, then aggregate, de-duplicate and fill gaps. Aim for a language with which to express the body of knowledge – hopefully with much of the basic knowledge captured in the relationship between the terms.
My $0.02USD,
Scott
_______________________________________________ DG-IDPro mailing list DG-IDPro@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idpro [1]
_______________________________________________ DG-IDPro mailing list DG-IDPro@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idpro [1]
--
ANDREW HUGHES CISM CISSP Independent Consultant IN TURN INFORMATION MANAGEMENT CONSULTING
o +1 650.209.7542 m +1 250.888.9474 1249 Palmer Road, Victoria, BC V8P 2H8 AndrewHughes3000@gmail.com ca.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-hughes/a/58/682/ IDENTITY MANAGEMENT | IT GOVERNANCE | INFORMATION SECURITY
Links: ------ [1] http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idpro [2] https://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/ontology
_______________________________________________ DG-IDPro mailing list DG-IDPro@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idpro
Thanks Nat So to help that notion along (and yes, not everyone will agree on the ISO standards and re-litigating some of that right here, and right now, will not be a productive use of our limited time before February) here is the link I have used, to get to ISO definitions: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/ You can see the terms and definitions radio button on the menu. This is the link I have used to find free standards, but there are several avenues to those; http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/index.html They are listed in numerical order, so the one of general interest to this group would be 24760-1, and to some extent 29100. Cheers Colin On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Nat Sakimura <nat@sakimura.org> wrote:
Not everyone would agree, but basing on ISO terminology might be a good idea. ISO documents are not freely available in general, but their terms and vocabularies are. Those terms are constructed with well disciplined principle and are the result of hundreds of man hours of work so leveraging on it sounds like a good idea.
Downside is that sometimes these definitions are not the same as what a general practitioners use. In many cases, the "general use" was not precise enough and often conflicting so they had to depart from the usual usages.
Nat
On 2016-11-05 03:56, Andrew Hughes wrote:
+1 Scott
I also think that capturing the bibliography created by the submissions has value.
We are missing finding aids in general...
(I won't address the maintenance point)
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 8:44 AM Thorsten H. Niebuhr [WedaCon GmbH] <tniebuhr@wedacon.net> wrote:
Hi Scott
+1 from me!
I would even propse to do that using vocabularies or even ontologies (https://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/ontology [2])
my € 0,02EUR
T.
On 04.11.2016 15:59, Scott Shorter wrote:
Hello ID Pros,
I want to get behind the ideas of a taxonomy and a glossary, and propose that they are two views of the same thing – a high quality glossary should explain how terms interrelate, resulting in a taxonomy of relationships. Contrary to Andrew Hughes’s point about glossaries, not all branching structures are ratholes, some of them are ontologies. I agree with him that it can be challenging to come to consensus but not everything worth doing is easy.
Having a jargon is inevitable in any profession, but if we’re trying to be transparent and welcoming, we should document our jargon in some form. Yes, there are existing compilations of terminologies from various industry standards and documents, but they lack coherence of meaning or context, and if they were helpful to newcomers we wouldn’t be having the conversation.
A rough work plan for a project would be for members to contribute their favorite lexicons, glossaries and taxonomies, then aggregate, de-duplicate and fill gaps. Aim for a language with which to express the body of knowledge – hopefully with much of the basic knowledge captured in the relationship between the terms.
My $0.02USD,
Scott
_______________________________________________ DG-IDPro mailing list DG-IDPro@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idpro [1]
_______________________________________________ DG-IDPro mailing list DG-IDPro@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idpro [1]
--
ANDREW HUGHES CISM CISSP Independent Consultant IN TURN INFORMATION MANAGEMENT CONSULTING
o +1 650.209.7542 m +1 250.888.9474 1249 Palmer Road, Victoria, BC V8P 2H8 AndrewHughes3000@gmail.com ca.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-hughes/a/58/682/ IDENTITY MANAGEMENT | IT GOVERNANCE | INFORMATION SECURITY
Links: ------ [1] http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-idpro [2] https://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/ontology
participants (5)
-
Andrew Hughes -
Colin Wallis -
Nat Sakimura -
Scott Shorter -
Thorsten H. Niebuhr [WedaCon GmbH]