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] DITA 1.3 Draft Proposal 13089 - Add learningObjectMapRef and learningObjectMap


Hi Mark and learning sc -

Below are my initial comments before the discussion at the meeting last week.

Here's where I am at this point -

1) I support adding a learningObjectMapRef element to the learning map domain, either by itself or as part of learningGroup.

a) this content model by itself (in other words, you can only supply a flat list of learningObjectMapRef elements in a map -

        ( (topicmeta) (optional)

b) this content model when used in a learningGroup -

( (topicmeta) (optional) then (learningPlanRef) (optional) then ( (learningOverviewRef) or (learningPreAssessmentRef) ) (any number) then ( (learningObject) or (learningGroup) or learingObjectMapRef) (any number) then ( (learningPostAssessmentRef) or (learningSummaryRef) ) (any number) )

2) We loosen the content model for learningObject, to make all elements in it optional, including learningContentRef.

3) If we do #2, then I still question the need for new map and bookmap types for learningObjectMap - I prefer keeping the learning map elements in the domain and integrating the domain into map, bookmap, or other specialized map as desired.

Thanks to Mark for the good thought he's put into the proposal.

John Hunt, IBM

--------------
Here's my earlier comments on the proposal.

First, you can do what you want today, using a learningObject href to a ditamap, with the issue being you need to include an empty learningContentRef to keep it valid.


For example, this map with href's to separate maps for each learning object -


<map title="Sample DITA 1.2 learning content" collection-type="sequence">

<title>Sample DITA 1.2 learning content</title>

<learningObject href="" format="ditamap">

  <learningContentRef/>

</learningObject>

<learningObject href="" format="ditamap">

  <learningContentRef/>

</learningObject>

</map>


And this in the lc_spec_overviewassump.ditamap -


<map title="Sample DITA 1.2 learning content" collection-type="sequence">

<title>Sample DITA 1.2 learning content</title>

<learningObject href="">
 <learningContentRef href="">
 <learningContentRef href="">
</learningObject>

</map>


So, I see two options -


1) We make learningContentRef optional in learningObject, which would mean you could do this -


<learningObject href="" format="ditamap"/>

<learningObject href="" format="ditamap"/>


2) We add a new learningObjectMapRef to the learning map domain, and make this element available by itself, or as a member of learningGroup, like this -


( (topicmeta) (optional) then (learningPlanRef) (optional) then ( (learningOverviewRef) or (learningPreAssessmentRef) ) (any number) then ( (learningObject) or (learningGroup) or learingObjectMapRef) (any number) then ( (learningPostAssessmentRef) or (learningSummaryRef) ) (any number) )



We may actually want to do #1 anyway.


Then, #2 makes this option more explicit, but do we really need it? Plus, I'm not sure there's a way to constrain the learningObjectMapRef to *just* point to a valid learningObject. I just did a couple of quick experiments with DITA OT, and found that the learningObject href can actually point to any map structure at all - including any random map with topicref's - so when using these map references, I wonder what validity rules we expect should apply?


Finally, I'm not sure I sure any reason that we would want to add a learningObjectMap element. First, this would imply a new map type. Right now, we don't actually have a learning map type, per se - we just have variations of map and bookmap that include the learning map domain.




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