Even more than when I started it, I think that having a glossary of all modeling / model-driven related terms we use is key to make sure we know what we’re talking about (among us and with people from outside our domain).
This is the link to the current version of the glossary but I believe this should be more of a joint effort I’ve also created a GitHub repository (link) you could use to directly contribute to the glossary. Feel free also to open issues to suggest new terms (if you don’t want to add them yourself) or discuss the correctness of existing definitions.
Once a week I’ll merge the requests and update the online version with it (manually!, unfortunately, among the many plugins to embed GitHub info on a WordPress site none is able to replace a specific page/post with the contents of a GitHub file in a repo). Hope you decide to give a hand!
I’ll consider this also as a kind of experiment to see if you (my readers) feel like contributing more to the site if you can do it on GitHub. If so, I’ll open a few more pages and build up a bigger community involvement on the site.
ICREA Research Professor at Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (UOC). Leader of the SOM Research Lab focusing on the broad area of systems and software engineering. Home page.
A lot of these have Wikipedia pages too. One could simply put this on Wikipedia as a Glossary. That would allow easier editing.
For example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_machine_vision for another computer-science related glossary
At the very least, how about allowing links to Wikipedia entries
I’m afraid I disagree with your statement on Wikipedia as an easier editing platform over GitHub (at least for me and specially when it comes to the monitoring part). And I don’t like to simply redirect people to Wikipedia (or other external pages). This could for sure be used to complement the info but I do believe the key to make the glossary useful is to offer a 3-to-5 line description of the concept without resorting to external info. Otherwise we could just point to the UML standard specification in the UML entry and ask people to read the 700+ documents to get an idea of what UML is for. I think we can agree this would not be very useful.