Glossary improvement (was: Objects and Relations)

JOG wrote:

[snip]
> Do not underestimate the value of the glossary to people who have just
> arrived. Sure, it is far from perfect, but I still believe it is a
> good starting resource, and this is why I'd encourage its continued
> iteration.

Thank you.

Further iteration is difficult.

First step, which words to discuss and include: It is simply hard to spot (and agree on) the places where the discussion is hampered just (or mainly) because of different use of terms.

Second step, discuss them:
This needs cooperation between people with different, sometimes even opposing views in rather boring looking conversations about alternative meanings of words.

Both require a willingness to postpone judgment much longer than some are used to, and a certain level of table manners. Received on Sun Feb 11 2007 - 11:31:55 CET