Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost)

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 00:09:55 +0100
Message-ID: <45ce5095$0$324$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>

Cimode wrote:
> [Snip]

>> The stated purpose of the glossary is "to limit lengthy
>> misunderstandings in comp.database.theory." Spin-offs are welcome
>> but not actively chased. I haven't seen CJDate's dictionary yet.
>> I trust that its intended audience is much wider than just this
>> newsgroup. Aside: I don't think CJDate would mind a definition
>> or two (properly attributed of course) from his dictionary in the
>> cdt glossary.

> I am not convinced that *lengthy misunderstandings* in this NG are
> solely linked to a lack of common vocabulary but also to differences
> in perception and behaviorally driven considerations. A glossary will
> help but it won't save you from *Knowledge is power* statements
> expressed by some people around.
>
> *All I know is I know nothing* (Montaigne)

Heh. Even a glossary is no silver bullet, indeed.

>>> How do you update it ?
>> Re-editing sent posts, copying & pasting text
>> from the newsgroup.

> Apologies. I restate a question I poorly asked at the first place.
> How do you keep it updated and credible? (how do insure that there is
> consensus around this glossary? ). I do not mean this as a sarcastic
> comment but as a friendly suggestive question that I hoped could help
> target your effort.(especially to by limiting the number of updates
> needed to keep the glossary valid).

No procedure to insure consensus is in place. Some at cdt dislike the glossary altogether.

This is how it got started
http://groups.google.nl/group/comp.databases.theory/browse_frm/thread/4e128f05ff737361/9204a5698604bff7

There were some threads at the time that could have easily been a much better read if the posters had been aware of the differences in connotations in advance.

I do think the glossary helps to
shortcut some of the misunderstandings,
but of course I suspect that I am prejudiced about that.

[snip layout example]

>> This looks good. Are you offering to do the work involved (source >> research, editing)? Hint: I am not.

> No thanks. This NG is lost cause. Dropping by from time to time and
> encouraging what seems useful (ex:a glossary) is enough ;)
Received on Sat Feb 10 2007 - 17:09:55 CST