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)?
- From: john_hunt@us.ibm.com
- To: dita-learningspec@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 10:08:25 -0400
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]