Glossary: Process has to be defined

janWelte commented 11 years ago

As it tuesday the input process for the glossary has to be writen down.

srieger commented 11 years ago

Hi Jan, you closed the issue, but I believe it still is an open issue, isn't it?

Answer: Actually this issue was set as a demonstration issue to give Mrs. Yurdakul an impression how it could work.

cecilebraun commented 11 years ago

Is it possible to define the abbreviation in the same table too ?

cecilebraun commented 11 years ago

Do we create an issue for each definition we propose or fill directly the table ?

janWelte commented 11 years ago

It would be possible to add the abbreviations to the table. I will do this and you can see whether this looks good for you. Since this table is just a first draft version, we should use it to see what's working best.

janWelte commented 11 years ago

From our side it does not matter wether people use the issues or directly access the table, but maybe using the issues is nice since it shows everyone what is new and gives room for a first discussion.

srieger commented 11 years ago

We need a seperate issue tracker for that I believe? This would imply to create a new repository/subproject, I guess.

janWelte commented 11 years ago

Maybe a new repository makes it easier to handle it (and everyone directly sees where to find the objects. But this would just be for convenience, since using the tack "glossary" would be enough to seperate the issues for this not safety related task.

srieger commented 11 years ago

I think a separate repository would be great. Otherwise it probably get's a bit confusing.

janWelte commented 11 years ago

In this case I'll write a proposal for a new repository.

srieger commented 11 years ago

Great, thank you Jan!

janWelte commented 11 years ago

We would like to great a new repository to handle the glossary work, therefore we have created the following proposal for a discussion:

Proposal

The [Glossary] project is a proposed open source project under the [Dissemination] Container Project of WP 6.

This proposal is in the Project Proposal Phase (as defined in the openETCS Development Process) and is written to declare its intent and scope. We solicit additional participation and input from the openETCS community. Please send all feedback to this mailing list openetcs-proposals@googlegroups.com.

Background

The openETCS work has to deal with specific terminology coming from various backgrounds like railway systems, software development or project management. In addition new openETCs specific terms representing the unique concept and process of this project have to be developed.

Scope

The scope of the glossary project is to collect and analyse the terms used in the openETCS project. Doing this a consistent terminology shall be established from which a general openETCS glossary can be extracted as basis for all deliverables.

Description

The glossary project will provide the central point for the collection, discussion and dissemination of terminology in the openETCs project. To do this the repository will be used as follows:

collecting and showing all relevant terms via a wiki page
proposing and discussing terms interactively using the issue tracker
providing an easy accessible glossary via a latex document and a connected wikipage
providing suitable glossary files for easy integration into all openETCS outputs and deliverables

All these activities are necessary to provide a coherent openETCS glossary which needs to be based on a consistent terminology. The repository will be he interface between all project partners and the terminology experts doing the professional terminology work.

Why openETCS?

Since the unique approach of the openETCS projects creates a unique openETCS terminology, this has to be collected and managed somewhere in the project.

Initial Contribution

Terminology of the ERTMS/ETCS Specifications and the openETCS project proposal Terms and suggestions for their definition needed for the openETCS work by all project partners

Legal Issues

The resulting glossary and further outputs will be subject to the openETCS license policy. Details concerning the licensing issue will be defined corresponding to the content. The glossary and all connected documents will be put on the github repository of the openETCS project.

Project Leads

Ayse Yurdakul (TU-BS)
Jan Welte (TU-BS)

Committers

The following individuals are proposed as initial committers to the project:

Stefan Rieger - TWT
Cecile Braunstein - Uni Bremen
Bernd Hekele - DB
Peter Mahlmann - DB

We welcome additional committers and contributions, since all project partners have a reasonable interest to participate in this project.

Mentors

The following Architecture Council members will mentor this project:

Dr. Klaus-Rüdiger Hase (Suggestion)

Interested Parties

The following individuals, organisations, companies and projects have expressed interest in this project:

all over openETCS WPs

Project Scheduling

The project will work in parallel to all other activities to receive constant input. As a supporting task the project provides aid for all deliverables and will be maintained over the full time of the openETCS project.

srieger commented 11 years ago

I support this as I believe that this would simplify contributions and make it easier to find the glossary. It is to be used by all other WPs and we could generate documents for inclusion in LaTeX on a regular basis.

janWelte commented 11 years ago

Process is defined and work transfered to the glossary repository

openETCS / Dissemination