Properly including (and updating) the Visual Glossary

[MikelSalazar]

I am working on the new and improved Visual Glossary and I wanted to make sure that there are not problems with the adoc format (linking the different concepts) and there are no logical inconsistencies.

Steve, can we create some sort of template so that I can include the different concepts (separated in sections) and the anchor/ink systems works properly across different files?

[3DXScape]

OK I will come up with something that works.

[3DXScape]

I made these minor changes to Basic_Concepts.adoc :

1. copied Basic_Concepts.adoc to GeoPose repo (I have no write access to this repo so issue comments is my only way to communicate)
2. added table end marker |=== and some blank lines
3. added explicit sizes for columns and images to make AsciiDoctor happy when making PDF and HTML - you will want to tune these parameters
4. added anchors in the form [[_def_bcsomename]] to first column of each row of the table
5. built HTML and PDF for testing

Linking from an external document seems to work. I don't have write access to this repo so I put results in the main Geopose repo here. For testing I hosted the PDF file on geopose.io and here is a test link to the GeoPose definition in your glossary: geopose

Just change def_bc_geopose to match other anchors. In Chrome, I had to do a refresh on each link test.

I was mildly surprised that it works as it should.

[cperey]

@3DXScape I’ve invited you to the repository

[3DXScape]

Thanks. I copied the suggestions to a temporary branch "link_to_rows". Mikel you can merge or delete this branch as you choose.

[MikelSalazar]

Thank you Steve,

Now that I have finally found the time to continue working on the new version of the Visual Glossary, I have copied your template into my documents and it works perfectly. However, since we need to apply the same anchor formatting to the other documents, I would like to remove the "_bc" part from the anchors (that I believe stands for "Basic Concepts"), to simplify things and just leave as "[[def_concept_name]]. Would it work for you?

Apart from that, after reviewing aerospace-related documentation, I believe we have to modify some of the basic concepts to account for different types of reference frames (inertial and non-inertial) and acknowledge the existence of vehicles that can have reference frames independent of that of the Earth.

Also, I believe it will be really necessary clarify the differences between the concepts of Location (a region of space with its own reference Frame), Position (a point vector in an inertial Frame) and Translation (a point vector in a non-inertial Frame... because after reviewing it in depth I have found out I have been saying it wrong all this time and I have to amend it as soon as possible.

[3DXScape]

Hello Mikel,

Good. I have been busy too.

You are correct: I tried to give the identifiers for the definitions enough structure that it would be easy to avoid duplicate names. Any scheme that you want to use is fine for me. Since the identifiers are local to the documents (even though referenced from an external URI) we do not need to maintain uniqueness between documents.

One of the practical problems with concepts is that across application domains there are more concepts than names for the concepts. The mathematical “pigeonhole principle” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle guarantees confusion :-) The more domain experts, the more overloading of mental abstractions and increasing confusion. This just an observation, not a conclusion or solution or advice. We should discuss in the meeting.

…steve

[cperey]

Done