Agreement on definition of 'methodology' and related terms

As I understand it, the 'organisation' implied in the original question is the ProjectManagement.com Discussions space.

So I think what Marius is asking is, why aren't we, the users of this Discussions space, building a termbase here for these terms as they are used in their Project Management context in these discussions, so that we can all understand each other better? (I.e. those terms that don't already exist in either the PMBOK Guide, Glossary or Lexicon -- or which do exist there, but which are in conflict with each other or with their usage in the PMBOK Guide or the broader de facto PMBOK.)

...Considering that creating standards is one of the things that the PMI is supposed to be all about, presumably through the collaboration of its members.

For example, the PMBOK Guide describes both the EVM as well as the CPM as methodologies. (My guess is that the latter is actually a mistake which will be corrected in the next edition, because at times the Guide also calls it a method.) It also lists 'agile, waterfall and PRINCE2' as 'methodologies and tools'. (I wouldn't have called agile either a methodology or a tool, actually, although I suppose anything you use to make something work could probably be considered a tool.)

If this is a naive question from a new kid on the block, feel free to point to the Official Authorised Answer. :-D

I started this discussion because I genuinely hoped to get clarity from the community. I do not have an agenda other than to just understand where I misunderstand.

I used examples of terms in need of common definitions within the PMI Community. If I were active in another community (e.g., the IPMA community), I would not expect them to lead me to the PMI publications for clarity of terms that they're using.

The following terms, which I used as as examples when I started this discussion, are not defined in either the glossary of the PMBOK Guide--Fifth Edition, or in the PMI Lexicon of Project Management Terms (Version 3):

Framework (used amongst PMI members in blogs and online postings, along with 'model', and a host of other collective terms.
Model (used to indicate just about anything collective within the ambit of project management).
Method (or methodology, or whatever, as we've seen in the above postings)
Discipline (used loosely to denote, inter alia, the project management profession)
Plan (used loosely in blogs and postings to denote project plan, or project management plan, or just a collective set of actions or tasks, or sometimes used as a collective for activities)

The following terms, included in my original list, are defined in one or both of the above-mentioned PMI publications:

Methodology (As I pointed up in an earlier response in this thread, this term is used to denote anything from a vague method to distilled methodology, and anything in between.)
Standard (Let me not go here, this is a minefield that helps 'methodology' look like a baby's first word.)
Process

The essence of my submission is that, in many instances, the terms are not used consistently (even in the PMBOK Guide), as I pointed out in this posting about Methodology.

Reading through the PMBOK Guide, here is another example of disparity:

The definition of Scope Management Plan
Glossary definition: A component of the project or program management plan that describes how the scope will be defined, developed monitored controlled, and verified.
Lexicon definition: A component of the project or program management plan that describes how the scope will be defined, developed monitored controlled, and validated.

The PMI states that since the launch of the Lexicon in 2012, '...the PMI standard development committees have been chartered to use the PMI Lexicon definitions without modification.' (Preface Version 3). And yet, the definition of Scope Management Plan, and us such the implications of the difference between verified and validated when managing projects in the real world, is critical.

Coming back to my original question: Would it not be advisable to have a repository of terms, such as those mentioned in this postings, to guide those of us at the bottom of the feeding chain, through this treacherous terrain?

Sorry, I'm a bit lost... You write: "I firmly beleive that we need to concentrate the definitions inside the group that have been designated for the organization to create the glossary of terms."

Which group and organisation are you referring to in this context, and when should this discussion take place?