Dear John D. A published glossary of sundial terms is indeed a worthwhile project for both organizations.
Since you asked, I do have an idea which I'd like to run by you. I noticed that BSS has a link on its website to a FAQ section. Since any FAQ project could turn out to be quite a bit of work, I thought to myself that it is too bad that BSS and NASS are duplicating their efforts doing the same thing. Wouldn't it be easier if we worked together on our FAQ projects? Since the definition of sundial terms are often FAQs, couldn't the glossery idea be part of the FAQ project? What do you think? John Carmichael Tucson Arizona >Dear NASS Officials (Claude, Fred) and John, > >At its recent Council Meeting, the BSS decided that it would like to produce >a Sundial Glossary of all the standard terms used in dialing. This will be >aimed at educating newcomers to dialing and, hopefully, standardising on the >definitions of some of the terms and symbols we use. In the first instance, >the glossary will be published as a standard BSS booklet, and it will then >be placed on the BSS web pages. > >I have volunteered to be the editor of this undertaking, and have made a >start at gathering together the most obvious of the terms that will need >including (183 items at the latest count). Once I have produced a draft, I >will submit it to the BSS for review before publication. > >The purpose of this email is to invite you to provide a NASS collaborator >to contribute to the review process. Since we share (almost!) the same >language, and we would like the glossary (which will be a living document) >to be the definitive source of definitions for English-speaking dialists, I >would very much like to have your help. At the very least, should common >UK/American definitions not be possible, we will need to make readers aware >of the differences. > >I am aware that there may be some overlap between this project and NASS's >excellent FAQ one. My hope is that between them, we should be able to >provide all the help that dialists require. There should also be some >cross-fertilisation of ideas. > >I'd be very grateful for your comments on this idea, and whether you would >like to be involved. > >Best regards, > >John > >
