I encountered the glossary for legislative activity for the U.S. Congress and remembered a post where I mentioned a similar resource for the U.K.
Rather than having to dig for both of them in the future:
To be truly useful, applications displaying information from either source should automatically tag these terms for quick reference by readers.
Enjoy!
Project Production Glossary sponsored by LTPI, Legal Technology Professionals Institute.
From the webpage:
The Legal Technology Professionals Institute Production Glossary is designed as an educational resource on terminology used in connection with producing electronically stored information. While a number of useful industry-wide glossaries exist, we could not find one that specifically discussed document production, nor one that discussed not only the “what”, but also the “why”, so we created one.
If you are using or creating topic maps in a legal context, this may be very useful.
Public comments are open.
Data Science Glossary by Bob DuCharme.
From the about page:
Terms included in this glossary are the kind that typically come up in data science discussions and job postings. Most are from the worlds of statistics, machine learning, and software development. A Wikipedia entry icon links to the corresponding Wikipedia entry, although these are often quite technical. Email corrections and suggestions to bob at this domain name.
Is your favorite term included?
You can follow Bob on Twitter @bobdc.
Or read his blog at: bobdc.blog.
Thanks Bob!
Abstract:
This document is a glossary of terms defined and used to describe Linked Data, and its associated vocabularies and Best Practices. This document published by the W3C Government Linked Data Working Group as a Working Group Note, is intended to help information management professionals, Web developers, scientists and the general public better understand publishing structured data using Linked Data Principles.
A glossary of one hundred and thirty-two terms used with Linked Data.
Legal Informatics Glossary of Terms by Grant Vergottini.
From the post:
I work with people from around the world on matters relating to legal informatics. One common issue we constantly face is the issue of terminology. We use many of the same terms, but the subtly of their definitions end up causing no end of confusion. To try and address this problem, I’ve proposed a number of times that we band together to define a common vocabulary, and when we can’t arrive at that, at least we can understand the differences that exist amongst us.
To get the ball rolling, I have started a wiki on GitHub and populated it with many of the terms I use in my various roles. Their definitions are a work-in-progress at this point. I am refining them as I find the time. However, rather than trying to build my own private vocabulary, I would like this to be a collaborative effort. To that end, I am inviting anyone with an interest in this to help build out the vocabulary by adding your own terms with definitions to the list and improving the ones I have started.
My legal informatics glossary of terms can be found in my public legal Informatics project at:
Now there is a topic map sounding like project.
I first saw this at: Vergottini: Legal Informatics Glossary of Terms.
From AIP to Zettabyte: Comparing Digital Preservation Glossaries
Emily Reynolds (2012 Junior Fellow) writes:
As we mentioned in our introductory post last month, the OSI Junior Fellows are working on a project involving a draft digital preservation policy framework. One component of our work is revising a glossary that accompanies the framework. We’ve spent the last two weeks poring through more than two dozen glossaries relating to digital preservation concepts to locate and refine definitions to fit the terms used in the document.
We looked at dictionaries from well-established archival entities like the Society of American Archivists, as well as more strictly technical organizations like the Internet Engineering Task Force. While some glossaries take a traditional archival approach, others were more technical; we consulted documents primarily focusing on electronic records, archives, digital storage and other relevant fields. Because of influential frameworks like the OAIS Reference Model, some terms were defined similarly across the glossaries that we looked at. But the variety in the definitions for other terms points to the range of practitioners discussing digital preservation issues, and highlights the need for a common vocabulary. Based on what we found, that vocabulary will have to be broadly drawn and flexible to meet different kinds of requirements.
OSI = Office of Strategic Initiatives (Library of Congress)
Not to be overly critical, but I stumble over:
Because of influential frameworks like the OAIS Reference Model, some terms were defined similarly across the glossaries that we looked at. But the variety in the definitions for other terms points to the range of practitioners discussing digital preservation issues, and highlights the need for a common vocabulary.
Why does a “variety in the definitions for other terms…highlight[s] the need for a common vocabulary?”
I take it as a given that we have diverse vocabularies.
And that attempts at “common” vocabularies succeed in creating yet another “diverse” vocabulary.
So, why would anyone looking at “diverse” vocabularies jump to the conclusion that a “common” vocabulary is required?
Perhaps what is missing is the definition of the problem presented by “diverse” vocabularies.
Hard to solve a problem if you don’t know it is. (Hasn’t stopped some people that I know but that is a story for another day.)
I put it to you (and in your absence I will answer, so answer quickly):
What is the problem (or problems) presented by diverse vocabularies? (Feel free to use examples.)
Or if you prefer, Why do we need common vocabularies?
Powered by WordPress