Some thoughts on the LE:NOTRE Glossary
Dear Colleagues,
The number of entries made by the various working groups in the LE:NOTRE glossary so far does
not seem to be proportional to the numbers of people who have registered for the groups, but
rather to be the reflection of the energetic efforts of a few committed individuals. (In total there
are now some 320 staff members registered on the web site, and the current number of glossary
entries (in all languages) corresponds to about six terms per person. In reality, however only 10%
of that number have actually contributed to the glossary, and some of these have entered well over
100 terms.
Maybe this is also a reflection of a widespread misunderstanding of what the glossary is meant to
be achieving. Hence these few notes on how I think we ought to be using it.
The glossary is not, in the first instance, an end in itself. As has already been remarked: there are
already specialist dictionaries on the market (albeit not in anything like the number of languages
that are represented in LE:NOTRE, nor covering all the specific subject areas). Far more, the
glossary is to be seen as a working tool with which to move towards finding mutual understanding
between the participants in the LE:NOTRE Project and as a means of seeking consensus on the
subject area being dealt with by each working group.
One way to look at is might be to think of the process of adding glossary terms as a kind of ‘party
game’ in which a picture of the working group subject area is successively built up as each working
group member adds a new term. One by one these terms mark out and fill up the conceptual space
covered by the working group, to finally paint an overall picture of the issues, concepts and field of
knowledge that is covers. The terms may be conceived as the individual dabs of colour which go to
make a pointillist painting.
To make sure that we all understand the terms being used in the same way, it is necessary to
provide a short definition of each one. This definition should refer specifically to the way in which
the term is understood in the context of landscape planning, design and management, and in
particular with regard to the specific working group areas to which they relate, and not merely their
meaning in general usage. Always assign each term to one or more working groups when you enter
it. This relationship can be changed or extended at a later stage if necessary using the ‘Edit
definition’ function.
A second important practical function of the glossary is that it will provide the raw list of terms
from which it will be possible to select and agree a list of analytical keywords with which to help
describe and classify other items about which information is being collected e.g. course units and
theses. (N.B. The feature allowing us to designate certain terms as keywords still needs to be
programmed and is thus not available yet)
To make the best use of the database, and to make it as effective a tool as possible for all
members of the working group, the terms and definitions should be entered in a consistent and
structured way. Please try and follow the conventions set out below:

Do not use capital letters for the term unless this is grammatically necessary in the language in
question (e.g. if it is a proper name in English, or if it is a noun in German).

Start the definition with a capital letter. Do not use the term being defined in the definition if
this possibly can be avoided.

If the term being entered is a synonym for (i.e. means exactly the same as and is
interchangeable with) another word in the glossary, please note this fact following the definition
thus: Synonym for >’other term’.

Synonyms only need to be defined once. Ideally the definition should be attached to the most
commonly used of the synonymous terms and this should be followed by a reference to the
synonym (see above). In place of a definition of the other synonym, the definition field should
merely contain a reference to the other term: Definition: see “synonymous term”.

At present the database structure only allows for the entry of synonyms in English i.e. the
addition of extra ‘rows’ to the glossary ‘table’. The addition of one or more synonyms in another
language for one term in English i.e. more than one ‘column’ for each language in the glossary
‘table’ is not allowed for by the current database structure. To add this feature will require some
re-programming. This is planned as a future development, but currently falls outside the
budget. You will be informed as soon as it is possible to add this enhancement.

You can work around the problem of not being able to correctly enter synonyms in languages
other than English until the update to the database has been made by putting two synonymous
terms in the same database field, but this can only be a temporary solution as the term cannot
be searched for properly.

Some terms have more than one meaning, depending on their context. In order to enter the
same term in the database two or more times and to give each entry a different definition, each
version of the term should be given a number after the term, e.g. rambler 1 – person who takes
recreation by walking in the countryside; rambler 2 – climbing plant which scrambles up other
vegetation, usually by using thorns. These two terms would also probably be associated with
different working groups.

If the terms used are meant to be understood in a specific context, it may be useful to include a
reference to the use of the term in the literature. It is suggested that the ‘Harvard’ style of
referencing should be used, e.g. Hillier, 1995 p. 47. This can later be cross-referenced to an
entry in the planned literature database when this has been implemented.

When using terms in a definition which are included and defined elsewhere in the glossary this
should be noted by using the ‘greater than’ symbol in front of the work in question: >outfield.

As far as possible please enter and define terms in your own language only. One major
advantage of the LE:NOTRE Project is the involvement of native speaking landscape academics
from more than 20 languages. We should try and make use of this expertise rather than rely on
our own imperfect knowledge of other languages. Otherwise the nuances of use and subtleties
of meaning which are so important could be lost. This is especially true where the functionally
equivalent term in another language may not correspond to a literal translation of the term in
your own.

If, however, as a non-native English speaker you need to enter a term in English which so far
does not exist in the database in order to be able to enter it in your own language, please enter
it in quotation marks “thus”. This will ensure that the term can be checked by a native English
speaker – and will at the same time act as a request to English speakers to look at the terms
entered and to edit out the quotation marks as appropriate. All terms in quotation marks are
sorted by the database to the beginning of the list so that they can easily be found.

The same procedure should be used when entering other terms in languages other than your
own, unless you have native speaker fluency, and are familiar with the use of the landscape
architecture term in question in its landscape context.

The facility exists in the Glossary database to modify definitions, to suggest refinements or
enter improved versions. In making changes the former version is not lost but is visible in the
‘history’ of each term along with all other contributions, so that any ideas or subtleties are not
lost by accident or through misunderstanding. If all you wish to do is make a minor alteration or
correct a typing error, an option exists to suppress the creation of a new record.

In order to be able define a glossary entry as an ‘analytical keyword’ it will be necessary to add
an additional feature to the database. This is planned as a modification in the not too distant
future, but before it can be used, it will first be necessary to agree within the working group on
the terms to be selected as keywords. As with all such keyword lists, it will be necessary to find
the correct balance between a widely differentiated set of terms and the need to limit the range
of keywords to a workable number.

It is also proposed that the facility of add pictures to the glossary terms should be added at a
future stage in the development of the glossary.

Most of the above conventions for use of the glossary database function with the current
structure. If you wish to suggest any further refinements or new features, which would add to
the functionality or the ease of use of the glossary, please contact the Network Coordinator or
the Webmaster.

One such feature which we hope to be able to add soon – funding permitting – is a new
‘comments’ field which is separate from the definition field. This will allow both the person who
enters the definition to add any explanatory remarks, but also for other members of the working
group to add their own remarks and suggestions regarding the meaning and usage of the term.
According to the project bid, the preparation of the glossary is defined as one of the outputs from
year one. Clearly the task is one which has no obvious endpoint, especially as it development is
seen as a working tool. Furthermore, the continued development of the features of the glossary
database during year one mean that it makes no sense to try and complete the glossary at the end
of the first year. Nevertheless a target with regard to the achievement of a ‘reasonable’ number of
terms for practical purposes should be considered.
The 25 terms (‘headwords’) which were originally suggested as a number to be defined per working
group, multiplied up by 12 working groups and 20 languages make a total of 6000 entries in the
glossary database. As of 1st June there were 2050 entries, and many of the possible 20 languages
are not at all or barely represented. In terms of the number of terms which might ideally be
necessary to describe the scope of each working group in detail in the ‘pointillist’ manner
suggested above, 25 will only provide a very low resolution picture; 100 would be better, and
multiplying this by the 12 working groups and 20 languages gives a total of 24,000 entries. Even if
we accept that we will only be able to make half the maximum number of languages in the first
year, this still gives us a target of 12,000 terms. So we still have a very long way to go...
Remember the glossary is a tool to develop a dialogue about landscape architecture and not just a
dry word list which is an end in itself! Please take up the discussion...
Best wishes
Richard Stiles