Report: <https://glossary.metaverse-standards.org/concepts/28/>

[cperey]

Definition makes no sense in the context of the Metaverse Glossary

[ReesePlews]

@cperey thank you for the comments on the submitted X3D terms. (as listed in your recent issue submissions).

this brings up some interesting points.

these were submitted as a single part (entire standard). we need to have some governance rules about how to deal with these situations. i dont have the "expertise about the metaverse" to know which terms are usable and which are not. that is basically what the terminology task force group would be doing. since we cannot change these entries (and still refer to them as X3D source) we would need to drop them or use them as a base for newly created definitions and refer to the original source in a note to entry.

in the future, we may want to change the text on the submission form that when a published "vocabulary standard" from another SDO is submitted as a collection of terms for the MSF glossary, we should indicate that those terms will be subject to consideration by the terminology task force. that will work for small vocab standards but we dont want to encourage members to submit things like ISO 2382 [thousands of terms] for inclusion in the MSF glossary.

this is probably the best way to move forward.

the current X3D terms were added to the MSF glossary so there would be discoverable entries so the register group members could us the MSF glossary and see how it works.

i think some discussion on this at a future meeting would be helpful.

thanks again for the feedback.