Minutes March 15, 2005 regular meeting

[Don Day <dond@us.ibm.com>]

AGENDA:
0. Minute-taker volunteer
Wendy Shepperd

1. Roll call
--14 present out of 20 members
  Members: Bruce Esrig, Chris Kravogel, Christopher Wong, Dave Schell,
Eliot Kimber, Indi Liepa, Michael Priestley, Paul Grosso, Paul Antonov, Rob
Frankland, Robin Cover, Stanley Doherty, Wendy Shepperd, France Baril.
  Chair: Don Day
  Observers: David Brainard, John Hunt, Nancy Harrison
  Prospective: Dana Spradley, JoAnn Hackos, Kevin Schaum (now new member),
Paul Prescod


2. Review/approve minutes from 8 March
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200503/msg00057.html

-- [The Chair missed this item; to do next week.]

3a. Keyword Discussion
-- getting close. Lots of good discussion on the message board.
Summary from Michael(editor)
-- Keyword in DITA is allowed in the <keywords> element leads to conclusion
that <keywords> in prologue is a list of keywords available elsewhere.
<Keyword> as a general element is actually general, but <keywords> in the
prologue is very specific. There was lots of discussion on the TC list
about
this difference.

There were 2 Proposals, one from Bruce Esrig and one from Michael Priestly
and Paul Prescott.

Michael reviewed his proposal: (from Michael's email sent on March 15):
For comparison/voting, here's what's in the draft of the spec I'm about to
upload:

<keyword> represents a word or phrase with special significance in a
particular domain. In the general case, <keyword> elements typically do not
have any special semantics and processing associated with them, but can
still be useful for organizing content for reuse or special processing.
<keyword> specializations are more meaningful and are therefore preferable.
<keyword> in the <keywords> element distinguishes a word or phrase that
describes the content of a topic (a topic description keyword). Topic
description keywords are typically used for searching, retrieval and
classification purposes.

Specialized elements derived from <keyword> may also have extended
processing, such as different formatting or automatic indexing. If the
keyref attribute is used, or some other method of key-based lookup based on
the value of the element itself, then the keyword can be turned into a
hyperlink on output (not currently supported).

When DITA topics are output to XHTML, any <keyword> elements in the
<keywords> element are placed in the Web page metadata.

DISCUSSION:
-- compare difference b/w Bruce's and Michael's definitions. Discussed 2
differences.
--Bruce supports the wording that Michael proposed
--Paul supports the wording that Michael proposed

TC has general consensus. There are no objections voiced from the
committee.
Michael's proposed definition is accepted.

3b. Attestations
Last week, Don asked for attestations: a simple one-sentence: We've tested
the 1.0 DITA DTDs, and we assert that we are applying these in the scope of
the latest IPR policy.
Don received two replies. He asked the TC if any other people can provide
an
attestation. He asked Indi Liepa if she would be interested. She does not
have a response at this time, but she will take a look. He also asked Wendy
Shepperd from BMC. Wendy responded that BMC is still in the pilot/prototype
stage of implementation.

Robin Cover clarified that a member just needs to provide a certification
declaring that their entity represented is successfully using the DITA 1.0
specification consistent with the OASIS IPR policy. Robin clarified where
to
find the latest IPR. There is a new TC process document underway, but for
attestations, we will use the current definition.

ACTION: Robin Cover provide an update to the list clarifying the
requirements of an attestation.

ACTION: Don will provide an updated URL for the IPR policy link. Completed.
Wendy will check with her team and get back with Don. Paul Grosso offered
to
provide an attestation. Paul Antanoff offered to provide an attestation.


4. Review latest output; remaining comments/dispositions

Michael made most suggested changes to the spec accept for the following 2
usability change requests:
-- Did not include (reiterate the attribute list of every element when it's
the same as the attribute that it is specialized from). For example,
<wintitle> has the same attributes as <keyword>. It would be nice not to
repeat the attribute list. Michaels was not able to get these changes in,
so, in the current spec, each element has a complete attribute list.
-- In the example tagging for elements, sometimes the current element being
discussed in the example is bold and sometimes it isn't. Michael wasn't
able
to fix all of these, so there is still some inconsistency.

Michael asserts that he made all technical changes and most usability
changes except the ones noted above.
Michael and Don were able to add context for "contains" and "contains by"
to
the Language Reference and put in inheritance information for the class
attribute.

ACTION: Michael, upload the specification draft.

The TC members present at the meeting downloaded the latest zip. Michael
explained that the spec includes 2 PDF files, a set of DTDs (in a zip
file),
and a set of schemas (in a zip file).

Paul Grosso asked whether the spec will be provided in HTML format.

Don asked if we can have a single format that is the formal submission, and
provide alternate formats that are not the "formal" spec. The committee is
voting on the PDF version today.

Robin agreed that a linkable HTML is more usable, but the TC will probably
not require more than a PDF. Paul said we discussed as a TC months ago that
we would provide non-proprietary formats such as HTML. He would prefer that
we have a web-friendly format available, such as HTML.

ACTION: Michael, provide the HTML format as part of the spec.


5. Vote to accept revised materials as a ready-to-transmit
   Committee Draft.

2 options: Put forth a committee draft two. Today, we are looking at
committee draft one that includes all comments and suggestions. Now, we can
approve this version as committee draft two. Then, we can submit the spec
to
OASIS for acceptance.

Question from Bruce about the copyrights: OASIS 2005 and previous IBM
copyrights.
Michael said that the spec must keep a copyright history. So, the OASIS
2005
copyright supersedes the previous IBM copyrights, but he previous IBM
copyrights are preserved based on content submitted in previous years.

Roll call ballot vote:
1. Do we accept the zip file as provided by Michael Priestly with the
current updates that we accept the content as what we support as committee
draft 2?

Total count: unanimous approval from the 14 members present and the chair
(14 of 20 Members, pass by just over 2/3s Members)

ACTION: Need to submit the committee draft 2 to the OASIS committee for
approval. The submission will produce the HTML version of the
documentation.


6. Vote to transmit the CD to OASIS.
The next vote is to submit the current spec to OASIS for standardization.

Roll call ballot vote:

Total count: unanimous approval from the 14 members present and the chair
(14 of 20 Members, pass by simple majority)

7. AOB?


DECISIONS MADE:
-- Keywords issue: Michael's proposed definition is accepted.

ACTIONS:
-- Need to submit the committee draft 2 to the OASIS administration for
approval.

-- Robin Cover provide an update to the list clarifying the
requirements of an attestation.  Completed.

-- Don will provide an updated URL for the IPR policy link. Completed.
Wendy will check with her team and get back with Don. Paul Grosso offered
to
provide an attestation. Paul Antonov offered to provide an attestation. All
Completed.

-- Michael, upload the specification draft. Completed.

-- Michael, provide the HTML format as part of the spec. (to be done after
the
submission)

Regards,
--
Don Day <dond@us.ibm.com>
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
IBM Lead DITA Architect
11501 Burnet Rd., MS 9037D018, Austin TX 78758
Ph. 512-838-8550   (T/L 678-8550)

"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"
        --T.S. Eliot