Small "meta" data dictionary for WG consultation/use?

@Zachary_Trautt highlighted the “meta” need to develop a (small) data dictionary of terms to align understanding among {abstracts, phonons, thin films} dataset subgroups, so that it is more likely that we all agree on what terms like “data dictionary”, “vocabulary”, “ontology”, etc. mean.

Our initial plan (documented in the WG proposal) was to align efforts after separate subgroup data dictionary development, but perhaps this post-alignment can focus on domain-specific terms (i.e. materials science terms), and we can try to align sooner on such “meta” terminology.

What do you think? @Zachary_Trautt do you want to take a stab at this? I hesitate proposing a “fourth subgroup” for this effort. I agree this has some value, but I don’t want to lose focus on the dataset-specific efforts, from which bottom-up synthesis of such “meta” terminology is perhaps more laborious but also perhaps more logistically straightforward (because we can do it all together after drafting individual-dataset “dictionaries”).