Tech Forum

Alan_Brown wrote:This page has plenty of overlap with the Glossary wiki page, although the glossary does go far beyond simple abbreviations.

But putting it on the wiki would simplify editing and extending it. Is that good or bad? It seems good to me. If we did move it, should we merge it with Glossary, or keep it as a separate article, perhaps "LDS Tech Acronyms"?

When I started the definitions page, I hadn't even noticed the Acronyms on the top of the page. At this point I'd vote for whatever works. Leaving it where it is it's difficult to find as it's being buried beneath all the "suggestions" and additions posts.

Roy, I'm not sure I know what you mean. The acronyms link is under the "community" menu on the right hand nav on the main page.

McDanielCA wrote:Interesting. I took that directly from an internal acronym finder we use.

That may be, but I guarantee that "ascidia" is not the right term in the context of "CSV".

Alan_Brown wrote:Personal Ancestral Files : There should be no "s" in the last word -- it is simply "Personal Ancestral File." Also, the word "genealogy" is misspelled as "genealgoy"

The PAF name is fixed down in the definition, but the extra "s" is still in the list of links at the top.

I don't know what CDOL is but it has been used in a few threads. Perhaps that can be added?

coloradotechie wrote:I don't know what CDOL is but it has been used in a few threads. Perhaps that can be added?

The Glossary wiki page is a much better reference than this out of date thread (there is no longer an Acronyms link on the main menu of LDSTech).

On the wiki, you can easily find out what CDOL stands for and what it is.

Actually I still found Acronyms on the right menu, but I copied the definitions over to the Glossary page. In hindsight it is listed under Clerks, so if too technical, feel free to revert my edit.

kgthunder wrote:Actually I still found Acronyms on the right menu

I only said it wasn't on the main menu anymore. I know it's still on the right menu, but that isn't available from the forum or wiki, so that makes it significantly less prominent.

kgthunder wrote:I copied the definitions over to the Glossary page. In hindsight it is listed under Clerks, so if too technical, feel free to revert my edit.

Thanks for the contribution. I'll review it and clean it up. The Acronyms page was always a bit strange, since it contains an odd collection of terms:

1. Many terms that seem to be internal Church or software development process terms, but which I've never seen mentioned anywhere on LDSTech: DIZ, EFD, SRD, BEZ, EUP, FCH, GIDS, PDD, SORT.
2. Church buildings that are never referenced on LDSTech: JSMB, NOB.
3. Many computer industry terms that have little to do with the LDSTech site in particular: ASCII, ASE, ASP, PC, AD, EAD, B2B, B2C, B2E, BI, Blog, BO, COTS, CRM, IP, KB, SDK, SEO, SERP, SSH.
4. Random items: FWIW
5. Family History terms: PAF, PRF, IGI, FHL
6. Technical terms that are indeed referred to commonly on LDSTech: PIX, CSV, GIS, SAV, VoIP, VPN
7. Technical internal Church terms that are also common on LDSTech: GSD, ASA, CCN, CES, ERS, ICS, LUWS, MLS, RSS, SOAP.

My inclination is to:

• eliminate categories 1 & 2; since they seem to be internal to Church processes, they have little use for the community
• eliminate 3 &4 -- these categories have no practical limit and are better documented elsewhere.
• category 5 is probably worth including
• categories 6 & 7 have some nice additions that are used on LDSTech, so I would include them. Even though some of these terms are similar to category 3, they have enough specific usage in the clerk and community development worlds that they deserve special mention.

I'll mention this categorization on the Glossary's Talk Page, but I thought I'd solicit some feedback here as well.

FWIW :rolleyes:, uh, I guess the question is how on-line savvy are we expecting our users to be? Category #4 could be eliminated if we expect our users to all have significant experience with on-line phraseology. But if we're to be open to the newer group, perhaps it should be included.

RussellHltn wrote:FWIW :rolleyes:, uh, I guess the question is how on-line savvy are we expecting our users to be? Category #4 could be eliminated if we expect our users to all have significant experience with on-line phraseology. But if we're to be open to the newer group, perhaps it should be included.

There's only that one entry in that category now. But my point is, where do you stop? Do we have to add BTW, LOL, ROFL, IANAL, IMO, IMHO, RTM, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum?

Adding these dilutes the Glossary, IMHO :rolleyes:. Since there's no good place to stop, let's not get started. I suppose we could add a link at the top to other sites for acronyms in certain categories, such as online acronyms or common technical acronyms. But I really don't like the idea of including those individual terms in the Glossary itself.