Indeed,
a great start.
And
Annex A in Beyond Interoperability is useful in a practical way too.
However,
I want to flag that in formal standardisation circles, definitions that are a
paragraph long are not acceptable.
And
remember we want to give the ISOs of this world as little room to 'play' in
future formalisations of this standard.
The
first rule of thumb is that if you replace the term you are trying to define,
with the actual definition, you still have to make a grammatically correct
sentence.
The
second rule of thumb is try to use Oxford English dictionary terms where possible
so you minimise the need to define a commonly understood term in a different
way.
ISO-type
definitions typically achieve this by having definitions that are a phrase, then
using 'Notes' to explain the term in a practical way.
I
think this is what Peter hints at in his sub section on Terminology in his
Methodology paper. Read his 5 steps again.
So,
in summary, nothing wrong in the Annex A, and it will be useful in the Notes to
a definition. But those paragraphs as written may not *be* the definition.
Cheers
Colin
From: Chris Parker
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, 7 January 2011 9:51 p.m.
To: ;
Subject: RE: [tgf] Note on Methodology; Terminology
Peter
Thanks
for a great start - this all looks sound to me.
You
might also want to look at the annex to our attached white paper on
"Beyond Interoperability". This defined all the terms in our
map of Policy Products (ie the matrix mapping the EIF interop domains against
the four governance areas of our model) which seemed to us not already to be in
common use in other frameworks. One of the things this does is unpack
what we believe are the three key components of "legal
interoperability" - legal vires for inter-agency working; a legal
basis for public private partnership; and a pro-competitive regulatory regime
for the ICT sector - with each of these then further defined. I'm
not aware of the EU or anyone else having defined legal interoperability in any
practical way, so this may be a useful way of filling at least that gap in your
gloassary.
Chris
Parker
Managing
Partner, CS Transform Ltd, +44 7951 754 060
From: Peter F
Brown [mailto:]
Sent: 06 January 2011 22:05
To:
Subject: [tgf] Note on Methodology; Terminology
Hi:
A Happy New Year to everyone.
I have updated to the OASIS work area a
first cut of the proposed core terminology, as promised. It’s little more
than a capture of terms at this stage, without many definitions. See:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/40691/Core%20Terminology-2011-01-06.pdf
I have also started work on a note on
methodology – the section covering the development of the terminology is
finished and is attached for information. The next steps will be to examine the
list of other possible deliverables based on the contributions and discussions
so far and look at the methodology issues that will need to be addressed.
Regards,
Peter
Peter F Brown
Independent
Consultant
Transforming
our Relationships with Information Technologies
www.peterfbrown.com
@pensivepeter
P.O. Box
49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA
Tel:
+1.310.694.2278
Until 9
Jan 2011, Tel : +32.472.027.811
====
CAUTION: This email message and any attachments contain
information that may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are
not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or
attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in
error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and
attachments. Thank you.
====
