ofbiz-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rajesh Mallah <mallah.raj...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: glossary enrichment proposal
Date Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:43:23 GMT
Hi Shivangi ,

pls find replies inline.

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Shivangi Tanwar <
shivangi.tanwar@hotwaxsystems.com> wrote:

> +1 for the idea.
>
> Few More Suggestions:
>
> 1) Glossary of terms can also be bifurcated based on business processes or
> OFBiz components. For Example, inventory can have business terms like ATP,
> QOH, Back Order etc.
> 2) We can also incorporate business terminologies used in real world. So,
> people can relate those terms to the framework.
>
>
Both the above requirements are covered in a generic manner via various
relationship
mechanism in  SKOS system , I am hopeful confluence would have some plugin
that
allows to leverage on that or some related technology or standard for
maintaining vocabs
and semantic relations between terms  . ( I  would explore at some point )

SKOS article ( 2-3 mins reading time ).
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Knowledge_Organization_System#Concepts

I also observe that certain SKOS concept are already in use in Catalog >
Thesaurus application.

Also, I would like to contribute to this glossary enrichment effort too.
>

Sure ! & thanks  , its being done as a Wiki page only. As a matter of fact
contribution and enrichment to definitions should done by banking upon
existing definitions and on knowledge which can be borrowed on reliable
sources . (no point re-inventing , definitions , we have to put it in
context
of ofbiz only ).


regds
mallah.


>
> Thanks and Regards,
>
> Shivangi Tanwar
>
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Devanshu Vyas <vyas.devanshu16@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I like the idea, +1.
> >
> > Thanks & Regards,
> > Devanshu Vyas.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Rajesh Mallah <mallah.rajesh@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi ,
> > >
> > > We use many technical terms throughout the pages and articles but
> > > the interpretation of the term may be  open or approximate to various
> > > stakeholders due to lack of common definitions and glossary.
> > >
> > >
> > > We already have a glossary page
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBENDUSER/Glossary
> > > But it is not very exhaustive yet.
> > >
> > > I was planning to go through the BPRB pages and prepare a list of all
> > > technical terms used in various pages for the purpose of enriching
> > > (extending) the glossary.
> > >
> > > I invite opinions on whether it is worth ?
> > >
> > > My Arguments in favour:
> > >
> > > (1) We need a common plane for definitions, if there is a disparity
> > between
> > >       author's interpretation of a business term and the reader's or
> > >       reviewer's interpretation there shall be a communication gap.
> > >
> > > (2) For newbies it is a great resource  because it increases their
> > >       knowledge as well as ability of understanding more
> articles/pages.
> > >
> > > (3) consistency of articles: if all authors/contributors use the same
> > > terminology
> > >       then the content created by them shall relate to each other in a
> > more
> > >       consistent manner.
> > >
> > > Implementation notes:
> > > ----------------------------
> > > currently we have our glossary in a flat list format with is the
> easiest
> > > way
> > > to get started. However as the volume of terms and documentation
> > increases
> > > we shall also require to organise the glossary in a more methodical
> way.
> > > Some of the relevant standards are W3C standards like SKOS [1]  ,
> OWL[2].
> > > I am not sure if confluence has components that allow organising
> > vocabulary
> > > at this moment.
> > >
> > > Even if its' not there we can continue to enrich the Glossary / Vocab
> in
> > a
> > > simple
> > > manner (and later migrate/upgrade it).
> > >
> > >
> > > References:
> > > [1] https://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/intro
> > > [2] https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/OWL
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message