Work plan (generalized)

Shall we keep „Toponymic“ or change to „Geographical“ in the designation of the Working Group as well as for all tasks/issues?

Reading the titles in the agenda there is a mixture of “toponymic” and “geographical names”. I am wondering whether we should change our title to “geographical names”?

I cross-checked the definition for “toponymy/toponymic” in the UNGEGN glossary. I have understood that “toponym” is the broader term comprising “geographical names” and “extraterrestrial names”. This term is also part of the designation of the Expert Group.

At UNGEGN it could lead to a discussion about several agenda item titles. There are some well-established topics like “toponymic education” and “toponymic guidelines”.

For our Working Group I do not yet see any task, measure or request for addressing extraterrestrial names… and I do not recall any from the (my) past.

Hello all - and thanks for raising the question Pier-Giorgio. 

I am quite agnostic on a wholesale substitution of 'toponymic' for 'geographical names' - I don't particularly notice or mind that both forms are used - but I (we) are perhaps not the best group to judge, since we obviously know what toponymy is already - I don't know if we are possibly alienating people with the use of a 'strange' word?  But it would seem quite a wrench to move away from 'toponymic guidelines' etc.

What I will say though is that I like the proposal to alter the name of the working group to "Working Group on Geographical Names Data Management" - this feels much more 'modern', accurate and is a bit less of a mouthful!

Hi! It is great to be motivated to write on this topic.

My first encounter of the English word "toponym/toponymy/toponymic" was in the early 2000s when I got involved in the UNGEGN activities and actually met Kadmon's monumental book, more than 30 years after I began to learn English. The word was very unfamiliar to me, a non-roman character using person, but I soon found out that it was a convenient word in English literature in that it expressed two words (geographical names or place names) into one (toponym). In the Korean language there are no differentiated words. it is just "지명(jimyeong)."

A few thoughts on the use of "toponym" and "geographical name" in the English context:

• It seems theoretically true that toponyms do include extraterrestrial names while geographical names do not (this is what I teach Korean students), but in practice I am not sure extraterrestrial names are really considered when we talk toponyms.

• I agree to the point that "toponyms" sound a little old fashioned while "geographical names" modern (like geographic information, geographic something..). There seems very little possibility to use "toponymic" something in titling any new group or materials produced by UNGEGN. 

• So, there could be two contrasting views on the change: changing into "geographical names" (Catherine's suggestion looks great) signifies that the WG takes the track of modern technological development; while maintaining the current name "toponymic" exhibits the WG's history and some traditional traces (and also a sort of "noise" marketing).

Hope this helps.

Hi y'all,

as Coordinator for Toponymic Guidelines I feel obliged to join the discussion.

First of all I'd like to support Catherine’s name-proposal. Since working group names often show up in non-UNGEGN contexts (e.g. UNGGIM, ICOS) the new name would be easier to understand and - as Catherine and Sungjae have indicated - especially in the geographic community sound more modern.

As for the term itself, “toponym” is in our context a synonym to “geographical name” in a very high degree. Since in UNGEGN we pretty explicitly excluded extraterrestrial names from our agenda (Res. IV/13 Extraterrestrial feature names: "[...] Noting that the naming of extraterrestrial features is done in a satisfactory way by the Working Group for Planetary System Nomenclature of the International Astronomical Union [...] Recommends that the Working Group on Extraterrestrial Features of the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names should be dissolved[...]") there is really not much that would make a diference.

As Sungjae also hinted already, different languages make different usage of the "toponym"-word-family. E.g. in German words derived from this root are only used by experts whereas in the Romance languages they are used in everyday language. I think within the UNGEGN-context the usage of "toponym" is not a problem whereas in communication to the outside the usage of "geographical name" would be a better choice (like e.g. one paper from Peter Raper in his time as Chair of UNGEGN about the tasks of UNGEGN starts with "Geographical names, also called place names or toponyms [...]").

And finally, the alternative to the adjective "toponymic" in certain contexts would lead to clumsy word clusters (like indicated by Catherine). So, to wrap up my opinion, substitution of “toponym” and “toponymic” in certain contexts would definitely make sense (not only for your WG-name) but I’d also be hesitant to make a wholsale substitution. As for "Toponymic Guidelines" - on the one hand it's such a handy term on the other I have the same questions as you...

Best, gerhard

Hello all,

What an interesting topic. I find the use of the word 'Toponymic/toponymy' to be confusing, its more of a term academics use. I imagine it to be a similar distinction between the words nomenclature vs naming, naming being the modern/plain English term.

Noting the comments above, one would imagine UNGEGN attendees (both academics and practitioners) would be comfortable with the word Toponymic, but the use of 'Geographic' should be used for the public facing documents/ working groups, to assist the expected wider audience to understand what it is the working group is tasked to do.

This will fit nicely with UN-GGIM geographical names theme (note, not toponymic theme!).

I note on an Australian level we have many jurisdictions which have Geographical Names Board's, Panels etc and documents referring to 'Place' - doing away with geographic(al) altogether.

I would support a wholesale substitution to the word Geographic(al).

Kind regards

Rafe

Dear Catherine, Sungjae, Gerhard and Rafe,

Thanks for your responses. Apart from some clarifications you seem to accept a change of the WG title to the proposed title: “Working Group on Geographical Names Data Management”. I received two more responses from Vita (LV), Marija (SI) and Mary (PH) that the change seems acceptable. I will send out an email today to inform the WG about this first result and ask for some other comments.

Best regards,

Pier-Giorgio

Hello All,

I generally agree with the thoughts thus far shared. I am satisfied with the status quo in which both 'toponym' and 'geographic names' are used. Toponymy (and related terms) has become the "insiders" term. It is certainly easier to use to reference the discipline or science/art of what we do. But yes, for eternal audiences and clarity, use of 'geographic names' is better.

To me, "place" could be understood to mean only human settlements, but I know that not all think that way. I view "geographic" as a broader to include physical and cultural features. Some may have a different opinion on that.

I like the proposed new WG name as well - "Working Group on Geographical Names Data Management"

Thanks

Trent

And one more general comment - I am in favor of the work plan as written

I might suggest a different order of the bullets to indicate priority of tasks, but this is a minor point. There are eight bullets; how about this order?

6, 7, 3, 1, 2, 8, 4, 5

Thanks

Trent

Thank you for this valuable input, Trent! I will amend the work plan accordingly!

Thank you for all your comments. I changed everything according to the input. Let me know if I missed something.

Dear all,

I would suggest to add for the sentence

"provide consultancy and technical advice to the UN-GGIM activities related to the fundamental data theme ‘Geographical Names’ as well as to the support of geographical names data to the Agenda 2030, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) monitoring;  " and also for  Integrated Geospatial Information Framework (IGIF) and Future Trends in Geospatial Information Management reports.