I suspect "pissing off Robert" is a pretty good indicator that my
approach was misguided. Apologies for implicitly dismissing
Robert's and Kris's work (and the effort of others in this
matter). I look forward to seeking workable approaches to
aligning these specs, starting with tomorrow's LwDITA/DITA 2.0
spec editors call.
-Alan
On 4/29/19 9:20 AM, Robert D Anderson
wrote:
Hi Alan,
I'm a bit confused, and admittedly a bit
frustrated, by the analysis in your github repository.
Like Kris mentioned, we are supposed to meet to
go over some of the expectations / technical details for
alignment between the specifications. I'm not sure why, but
that call keeps getting put off. A lot
of the statements in your readme seem to flow from an
incorrect assumption about what sort of reuse we expected --
issues that could easily have been cleared up in a call.
On the full DITA 2.0 specification side, we've
already put a lot of work into this effort, in anticipation of
eventual alignment. I've spent more time than I should have
trying to convince people that this effort is both necessary
and worthwhile for the full DITA specification. It's really
frustrating to have all of that work dismissed so easily as
putting a "substantial burden on editors of the Lightweight
DITA specification", especially when so many of the burdens
flow from a misunderstanding of what sort of alignment is
necessary.
Robert D. Anderson
DITA-OT lead and Co-editor DITA 1.3
specification
Marketing Services Center |
Kristen James
Eberlein ---04/29/2019 07:56:45 AM---Hi, Alan. Just to check
-- How this is related to the open TC action item for the four
of us (me, yo
From: Kristen
James Eberlein <kris@eberleinconsulting.com>
To: dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: 04/29/2019
07:56 AM
Subject: Re:
[dita-lightweight-dita] for discussion - three LwDITA topics
w/DITA 2.0 reuse
Sent by: <dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Hi, Alan.
Just to check -- How this is related to the open TC action item
for the four of us (me, you, Carlos, and Robert Anderson) to
meet, collaboratively edit three topics, and discuss best
approaches for LwDITA and DITA spec alignment?
Is this prep work on your and Carlos' part? If so, I think it
does a good job of elucidating the following:
- Assessment of work effort for LwDITA spec editors
- Difficulties in pursuing an approach of classic reuse
between the LwDITA and DITA 2.0 specs
- Emergent requirements for LwDITA SC and LwDITA spec
editors
- LwDITA spec editors want to use LwDITA topics for
the LwDITA spec. (Do the LwDITA spec editors also want
topics that store any elements intended for reuse
between the two specifications to be LwDITA?)
- LwDITA spec editors do not want to refer to elements
(for example, the "<shortdesc> element") but to
components (for example, the "short description
component").
I think key work moving forward is the following:
- Statement of the requirements for alignment
between LwDITA and DITA 2.0 spec. (If we focus on reuse, we
lose the primary business requirement: that there must be
alignment between the two specifications.)
- Exploration of different approaches for making that
alignment happen.
- Assessment of the work effort for all the
stakeholders: LwDITA spec editors, DITA 2.0 spec
editors, and reviewers of the two specifications.
Best,
Kris
Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
www.eberleinconsulting.com
+1 919 622-1501; kriseberlein (skype)
On 4/28/2019 4:59 PM, Alan Houser wrote:
Colleagues,
Carlos and I have completed the exercise of drafting three
lightweight DITA component reference topics (shortdesc, data,
xref) with the goal of reusing DITA 2.0 content as much as
possible. Our topics and analysis are here -- https://github.com/ahouser/LwDITA_DITA2.0_POC
.
We can discuss tomorrow during the LwDITA SC call, should
Carlos deem this worthy of a spot on the agenda. :-)
-Alan
--
Alan Houser
Group Wellesley, Inc.
Consultant and Trainer, Technical Publishing
arh on Twitter
412-450-0532
|