Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Updated glossary #123

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Mar 10, 2025
Merged

Updated glossary #123

merged 8 commits into from
Mar 10, 2025

Conversation

hzbarcea
Copy link
Contributor

@hzbarcea hzbarcea commented Feb 24, 2025

Signed-off-by: Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]>
Copy link
Member

@csarven csarven left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some definitions in the glossary are overly specific, referencing particular solutions instead of describing the concepts in a more generic way. Since the glossary, like the use cases, is meant to be solution-agnostic, it would be better to generalise these terms. Additionally, some entries are incomplete or inconsistent in detail. That said, the glossary provides a starting point.

Copy link
Member

@TallTed TallTed left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I strongly advise ordering these alphanumerically by the defined term, not by any subjective method. Alphanumeric order is typical for glossaries and dictionaries.

@hzbarcea
Copy link
Contributor Author

hzbarcea commented Mar 4, 2025

Some definitions in the glossary are overly specific, referencing particular solutions instead of describing the concepts in a more generic way. Since the glossary, like the use cases, is meant to be solution-agnostic, it would be better to generalise these terms. Additionally, some entries are incomplete or inconsistent in detail. That said, the glossary provides a starting point.

@csarven all definitions come from an authoritative source, like NIST or W3C. I don't see in any way how they would reference any particular solution. Can you please be more specific about which definition and what would be your suggested verbiage?

hzbarcea and others added 6 commits March 4, 2025 12:23
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]>
@laurensdeb laurensdeb self-requested a review March 4, 2025 18:06
@csarven
Copy link
Member

csarven commented Mar 4, 2025

If you want to re-use existing terms from "authoritative" sources, simply link to them instead of redefining or paraphrasing.

Referencing specific specifications, e.g., Controlled Identifier (Document) locks the terms - which obviously limits alternative interpretations or solutions. The UC document should remain solution-agnostic, focusing on core concepts rather than prescribing a single approach.

Also, if strict definitions from external sources are the standard here, it's unclear why key terms like "Storage", "Application", and many other remain undefined after extensive discussion. And, there are still many other that's not listed or defined here. So, perhaps let's just get this PR in and hope for the best in the follow ups..

Signed-off-by: Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]>
@hzbarcea hzbarcea merged commit 1175f20 into w3c:main Mar 10, 2025
1 check passed
@hzbarcea hzbarcea deleted the glossary-02 branch March 10, 2025 00:53
- <dfn>Entity</dfn> — An individual (person), organization, device, or process. Used interchangeably with “party”; see [NIST definition](https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/entity).
- <dfn>Identifier</dfn> — The bit string denoting the identifier associated with an Entity; see [NIST definition](https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/identifier).
- <dfn>Identity Provider</dfn> — a Service Provider that operates an Identity Service;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Every entry should be standalone and probably end with a period.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants