OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita-learningspec message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [dita-learningspec] why both a domain specialization and aspecialization of a map (or topic)?



Dear learned and esteemed DITA learning content SC members -

Here's my thoughts on maps types and domains, based on a fresh review of the DITA Maps section of the the DITA 1.1 Architectural Spec and the article on the how-to map domain.

For, some basics (mostly drawn from the how-to map domain article) -
1) Whether done in a map domain or a map type, a map specialization specifies semantics and constraints on map elements, typically on topicref.

2) For example, you can specialized topicref elements to restrict references to topics of a specific type, such as a learningOverviewRef can only refer to a learningOverview topic.

3) You can also specify restrictions on how a set of specialized topicref's group and form a collection, including specific roles at specifics positions within the collection.

Processing a map type or domain
4) You can also provide specialized processing to apply to the specialized map elements, either as a type or a domain. For example, you might process a learningObjectRef to a SCO for packaging in a SCORM, and treat each topicref within the learningObjectRef with additional specialized processing, as appropriate. Or, for processing to a student guide or instructor guide for classroom training, you might let processing fall back to the web or pdf default, or provide specialized processing, as appropriate.

For an example of what such a domain might look like for the set of topics in our learning design, see http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/LearningContent/Structure/DITAMapDomain.

Why use a map domain for learning content?

1) The key advantage of a concisely-defined map domain for a learningObject is that you can make this available for use in many different map types, including the generic DITA map and the specialized DITA bookmap.

2) For example, if you have a map with a primary purpose of organizing topics to a product help system, you can include learningObject content as desired in that map, either directly, or by conref to a learningObject defined in another map. You might define a library of available learningObjects, for example, in a map to make them available for conref to other maps.

My recommendation: For organizing collections of topics as a learningObject, a map domain makes the most sense.

Why use a map type for learning content?

1) A map type enables a larger-scale organization of topic references, for a particular purpose. For example, bookmap defines the major structures and setup information for producing maps of information to be delivered as a book.

2) For learning, the question then is, do we have need for a larger-scale organization of learning content that goes beyond a hierarachical collection of learningObjectref's?

For example, do we have need to define a specialized map for an Instructor Guide or Student Guide, or does bookmap suffice for these purposes?

Are there other examples of major structures of learning content that we need to represent in a map that are not covered by map, bookmap, or a learningObject domain?








From: John Accardi <John.Accardi@Sun.COM>
To: dita-learningspec@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: 05/10/2007 07:17 PM
Subject: [dita-learningspec] why both a domain specialization and a specialization of a map (or topic)?




In today's SC meeting I raised the question about the wisdom of
implementing both a domain specialization and a specialization of a
topic or map for the same structure...

Specifically, we discussed creating a specialization of map for a
learningobject and then also doing a domain specialization of same.

Other than the obvious power of a domain specialization (being able to
use across all info types) what are the advantages of doing this "double
implementation"?

The analogous question referring to general DITA is ...

If bookmap.dtd is a specialization of map.dtd, why hasn't there been a
domain specialization of a book(map) for use across all info types?  Is
it because it doesn't make sense to be able to use a "book" anywhere
(across all the infotypes)?

I'm hoping that knowing this for bookness in general DITA will help us
determine if we in the SC should follow example with our learning object
implementation.

Any insights? thoughts?

Thanks,
John




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]