Hi Josef,
I also do not recall addressing topic-based review, as we have
thought in terms of aggregated topic authoring and review. There is an
interesting subject that I hope we can explore sometime regarding the use of
multiple maps to aggregate topics for review based on metadata.
Regarding topic relationships, I have been thinking about this
recently in terms of pharmaceutical submission content, particularly in the
area of CMC Module 2 and 3 summary/detail and document automation. I suspect
that this would only be addressed in broad concept by Rob’s model, as the
actual specializations that would deliver this type of relationship would
belong to a domain such as the Pharma SC.
We should discuss this sometime at our meeting—would be
interesting to vet whether there are similar use cases in other industries. If
so, Rob might think about whether this creates another dimension in his model, which
could in some way formalize the relationship of detail and summary versions of siblings
within an information model. Challenging, but it sounds like the type of puzzle
that might interest Rob.
Regards,
Michael
From:
josef.pellizzari@novartis.com [mailto:josef.pellizzari@novartis.com]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 9:31 AM
To: dita-busdocs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [dita-busdocs] Question from DITA Pharma SC: any good practice
for topic-based review?
Hi all,
In the last
DITA Pharma SC a question popped up around reviewing: is there any good
practice or process for topic-based review? As "reviewing" is
associated with "enterprise" the Pharma SC was looking at us or the
Adoption SC for answers.
I remember
vaguely that we discussed reviewing as one potential business case for an
aggregated document, but as far as I remember we never spent any time on
topic-based reviewing for business documents. Anything to carry back to
the Pharma colleagues?
A second
question was around relationships of topics. In Pharma documents (and Pharma SC
thinks also in business documents) we often have the same information in
different forms for different audiences or different parts of the
documumentation (summary vs. full detail, lay language vs. expert language, etc).
I cannot recall that we spent any time on this, or that Rob's model would take
this into account. Right?
Best regards,
Josef
|
Josef
Pellizzari |
