PR #182 split - terms and definitions (part 1 of 3)

[jpengar]

What type of PR is this?

• documentation

What this PR does / why we need it:

As discussed by the team in 11/09 WG call, in order to move things forward, we are going to split the content of PR #182 into three different PRs:

• ❗THIS PR❗One focused on just updating the terms and definitions. So that the WG can agree on the terms to be used in the rest of the documentation. Initially it keeps original changes proposed in Improve Access and User Consent document #182.
  • PR #182 split - terms and definitions (part 1 of 3) #212
• Another editorial one, simply including the same "better English" changes proposed in Improve Access and User Consent document #182. It assumes for the moment that the terms and definitions are the ones initially proposed. Then the document may need some adjustments later if something is changed in the previous PR and this one is already merged. This "better English" one will probably be the easiest to approve.
  • PR #182 split - better english improvements (part 2 of 3) #213
• And finally, another independent PR just for changes in the info.description template, which could also fix other issues like The wording in the Mandatory template for info.description is unclear #178.
• • PR #182 split - info.description template review (part 3 of 3) #214

The WG concluded that it would be much easier to deal with if we separated the proposed changes in #182 into different PRs.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #98
Related to #190 & #200

Special notes for reviewers:

Further context in #182

CC @chrishowell

Changelog input

Reviewed glossary of terms and definitions.

Additional documentation

N/A

[jpengar]

LGTM. @chrishowell's suggestions are fine with me. 👍

[jpengar]

I invite WG participants to review and comment. Specifically related issue owners. @tanjadegroot @RandyLevensalor
CC @AxelNennker @sebdewet

[sebdewet]

LGTM

[jpengar]

If there are no further comments, I would like to merge this PR as it has been open for weeks, and even longer if we include the original PR #182. @sebdewet @AxelNennker