[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] DITA 1.2 packages [updated]
|
Some comments edited into the text below.
-Jeff
From: SeicoDyne DITA
[mailto:dita@seicodyne.ch]
I have a few questions regarding the packaging, also based on the discussions we had today in the machine industry SC meeting.
A ) isn't the naming "Technical Content Package" a bit misleading? Do the Machinery Industry Package and the Learning and Training Package not also contain mainly technical content?
We’ll need some suggestions for a better name, if we want to consider a change here.
B ) As the Learning and Training Package will be used by training departments in the machinery industry as well, I would propose to add the machinerytask Domain and the Hazard Statement Domain to this package.
I guess we’ll want to find out what the Learning and Training sub-committee thinks.
For myself I’m not sure this is a good idea. If we aren’t careful, we’ll end up with all of the domains in all of doctype shells. I think we need to try and make some things simpler/smaller rather than more complicated/larger. Groups can always create their own customized doctype shells to use whatever combination of domains they want. The question for the TC or its sub-committees is what we should include in the out-of-the-box doctype shells that we will include in each of the DITA 1.2 packages.
In any case we wouldn’t add the domains to the package. While this isn’t completely settled, one possibility is the Hazard Statement domain will be part of the Core package and the Machine Industry domain would be part of the Machine Industry package. And then doctype shells from other packages could use these domains.
We could use the Hazard Statement domain in the Technical Content topic doctype shells. That might eliminate the need to create Machine Industry specific doctype shells for topic, concept, and reference. We’d want to ask the Learning and Training Content Sub-committee if Hazard Statement should be included in any of their topic doctype shells, but it would certainly be possible.
And to be clear, it is making the Machine Industry domain a prerequisite for Learning and Training (or any other package beyond the Machine Industry package) is what is making me uncomfortable.
C ) As decided today in the machine industry subcommittee we require the software, UI and programming domain in the machine industry package as well. (for the description of user/service terminals, machine control units etc.) But at the same time I would like to ask, if it is possible to have two shells, one including those three domains and one without them?
Including more doctype shells could certainly be done, but it makes the packages bigger and somewhat more difficult for the uninitiated to figure out. What is the use case for having both? Individual organizations are always free to create their own customized versions.
D) Can we use "Machine Industry Package" instead of "Machine Industry Specialization Package"
Sure. We should probably drop the word “Specialization” from all of the package names. That would give us:
Core Package (Base Package?) Technical Content Package (or some better name that someone suggests?) Book Package Learning and Training Content Package Machine Industry Package Semantic Linking, Controlled Values, and Taxonomies Package Combined Documentation Package Combined Package
E) I am not sure if I misunderstand the description in the "Machine Industry Package". I just like to motion that utility, highlighting, and indexing domain must be part of the machine industry package as well as all topic types: topic, concept, task, reference, glossary
All of the core topic domains (utility, highlighting, indexing, hazard statement) plus software, programming, and UI plus the Machine industry domain where appropriate should be included in the Machine Industry package doctype shells.
Less clear if separate versions of topic, concept, reference, and glossary are needed or if the versions from the Technical Content package (with the addition of the Hazard Statement domain) can be used.
F) Regarding the possible need or needless of a Machine Industry Task, I have the following question. The content model of the DITA 1.2 taskbody is:
<!ENTITY % taskbody.content "(((%prereq;) | (%context;) | (%section;))*, ((%steps; | %steps-unordered; | %process;))?, (%result;)?, (%example;)*, (%postreq;)*)" > The machinerytask Domain adds two new elements prelreqs (preliminary requirements) and closereqs (closing requirements) - names derived from S1000D. prelreqs has been specialized from section and closereqs from example. <!ENTITY % mitask-d-section "prelreqs" > <!ENTITY % mitask-d-example "closereqs" >
The content model of prelreqs is derived from S1000D: <!ENTITY prelreqs.content "((%reqconds;)?, (%reqpers;)?, (%supequip;)?, (%supplies;)?, (%spares;)?, (%safety;)?)" > (required conditions, required persons, support equipment, supplies, spares, safety)
The content model of closereqs is derived from S1000D: <!ENTITY closereqs.content "(%reqconds;)" > (required conditions)
The specialization will add prelreqs to the section element and closereqs to the example element. But now raised the question, what to do with prereq and postreq ?
In the discussion today in our subcommittee we had 3 votes to replace prereq and postreq by prelreqs and closereqs (to avoid confusion if both elements exist) => would require to remove prereq and postreq from the content model of task. 2 votes to add prelreqs and closereqs and to keep all elements from the taskbody (to offer a choice for the use of prereq or prelreqs) => content model of task.mod would remain unchanged
How big would be the differences and what would be the implication between these two options for the implementation.
Can this be addressed by using constraints with task?
Best regards
Chris
SeicoDyne GmbH Eichenstrasse 16 CH-6015 Reussbühl Switzerland Tel: +41 41 534 66 97 Mob: +41 78 790 66 97 Skype: seicodyne
Member of the DITA Technical Committee Chairman of the DITA Machine Industry Subcommittee
Von:
Ogden, Jeff [mailto:jogden@ptc.com] Here is a new version of the DITA 1.2 packaging proposal updated based on comments and suggestions received on the first draft. No major changes to the original proposal from 7 April. A few additional questions for the TC at the end. Changes are highlighted in blue.
We’d like to discuss this during an upcoming DITA TC call. And, as always, comments and suggestions by e-mail to the list or directly to me (jogden@ptc.com), Robert (robander@us.ibm.com), and Michael (mpriestlo@ca.ibm.com) are welcome.
The items below are numbered just to make it easier to refer to specific items in discussions and via e-mail.
General comments:
1) Core Package
a) DITA 1.2
Core Architectural Specification (introduction, topic, map, and b) DITA 1.2 Core Language Reference (map, topic, metadata, map group domain). c) DITA 1.2
Utility Domain Specializations Architecture and Language Reference (utilities, d) DITA 1.2 Processing Guidelines and Examples (non-normative).
e) Basic Topic document type shell (topic type, no domains). f) Topic type modules. g) Topic domain
specialization modules for the indexing, utilities, h) Basic Map document type shell (only map type plus the map group domain). i) Map modules. j) Map Group domain specialization modules. k) Delayed Resolution domain specialization modules. l) xNAL domain specialization modules. m) Basic Ditabase document type shell (topic type, no domains). n) ditaval document type.
2) Technical Content Package
a) DITA 1.2
Technical Content Specializations Architecture and Language b) DITA 1.2
Software Specializations Architecture and Language
c) Topic
document type shell (topic plus core topic domains plus the d) Concept
document type shell (concept plus core topic domains plus e) Glossary
document type shell (glossentry plus core topic domains plus f)
Reference document type shell (reference plus core topic domains plus g) Task
document type shell (constrained task plus core topic domains plus the h) Concept, glossary, reference, and task specialization modules. i) Software, programming, and UI domain specialization modules. j) Map document type shell (map plus map group, and indexing domains). k) Technical Content
Ditabase doctype shell (topic, concept, glossentry,
3) Book Specializations Package
a) DITA 1.2 Book Specialization Architecture and Language Reference (bookmap).
b) Bookmap
document type shell (bookmap plus map group, indexing, c) Bookmap specialization modules.
4) Learning and Training Content Specializations Package
a) DITA 1.2 Learning and Training Content Specializations Architecture and Language Reference.
b) Doctype
shells for all of the Learning and Training topic specializations except
learningBase, c) Learning and Training topic, map, and metadata domains. d) Learning and
Training map doctype shell (map plus the Learning Map, e) Learning and Training bookmap doctype shell (bookmap plus the Learning Map and Learning Metadata domains). f) Learning and Training map domain specialization. g) Learning and
Training Ditabase doctype shell (all of the Learning and Training topics,
5) Machine Industry Specializations Package
a) DITA 1.2 Machine Industry Specializations Architecture and Language Reference.
b) Machine
Industry Task doctype shell (task plus the core topic and c) Machine Industry domain specialization modules. d) Machine Industry
Ditabase doctype shell (topic, concept, reference, Machine Industry Task,
6) Semantic Linking, Controlled Values, and Taxonomies
a) DITA 1.2
Semantic Linking, Controlled Values, and Taxonomies Specializations
b) Subject Schema Map document type shell. c) Subject Schema Map modules. d) Classification Map document type shell. e) Classification domain specialization modules.
7) Combined Package
a) All of the above in one combined package.
Questions:
I. Should the Learning and Training topics and ditabase doctype shells include the software, ui, and programming domains? John thinks they should, but will check with the subcommittee.
II. Do we want a Learning and Training map doctype shell that is based on bookmap? John says yes.
III. Is it nuts to include so many variations of Ditabase doctype shells? Do we want a ditabase in each package? Should we leave this up to the sub-committees?
IV. Should we include the approved Best Practice documents as an informative part of the core package? Should we combine the existing best practice documents into a single document?
V. Which map document type shells should include the Delayed Resolution domain? Basic map? Technical Content Map? Bookmap? Leaning Map?
VI. We have a constrained task doctype shell as part of the Technical Content Package. Do we need to include an unconstrained task? If so, in which package? Or is the Machine Industry Task an unconstrained task that can serve this role?
VII. Notice that the Delayed Resolution domain is included in the core package, that it is not included in any doctype shells. Is this OK?
VIII. Notice that the xNAL domain is included in the core package, but it is only included in the Bookmap doctype shell.
IX. There was a suggestion that we have an additional package that would contain the combined documentation and none of the DTD, XSD, and related files. This is not included in the above proposal, but could be if members of the TC think it would be useful.
X. We will include the DITA source, PDF, and chunked HTML output. Do we want to include HTML Help (chm) and unchunked HTML output as well?
XI. Are seven or eight packages too many (six individual, one combined, and possibly a combined documentation package)?
XII. Questions about how to coordinate Robert’s proposed changes to the organization of the DITA Language Reference documents with the packaging proposal were raised during the 8 April DITA TC call.
XIII. There is a question about the name for what is labeled the “core” package above. Is “core” OK or would “base”, “common”, or something else be better.
XIV. There are questions about the right place to put the xNAL and Hazard Statement domains that we need to sort out.
XV. Is Technical Content a good name for item #2 above? Would Technical Publications be better? Something else?
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]