Re: AW: AW: [dita] Machine Industry Task question

[Robert D Anderson <robander@us.ibm.com>]

Hi Chris,

> So the only way we found to add the <closereqs><reqconds> at the correct
> place with a domain specialization, was by specializing it out of
example.
> As example has the same content model as section and as example appears
at
> the same position as closereqs has to appear. I am open to any better
> proposal to achieve the same goal.

With DITA 1.2, section and example no longer have exactly the same model,
because section is getting the <sectiondiv> element that was not added to
example. Aside from that issue though, I see two alternatives for how to
specialize.

One is to have the domain specialize from prereq and postreq. This prevents
us from having elements that are semantically identical but completely
unrelated. It also allows your closereqs to appear in the location you
need. The downside of this is that the domain can only be used in task and
specializations of task.

Another alternative is to use a structural specialization. This also allows
you to specialize from prereq and postreq, so it is semantically correct.
It is easier to maintain and to specialize from, because you do not need a
constraint module (this also means DITA 1.1 based processing tools can
understand it, which may be a plus). The down sides are that you need two
additional elements (machinetask and machinetaskbody), and that you need to
use or specialize from the machinetask module in order to get these
elements.

Thanks -

Robert D Anderson
IBM Authoring Tools Development
Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
(507) 253-8787, T/L 553-8787 (Good Monday & Thursday)

"SeicoDyne DITA" <dita@seicodyne.ch> wrote on 06/26/2008 10:10:24 AM:

> Robert,
>
> The closereqs element has been derived from the S1000D standard and is
> described as: Close-up-requirements to be used to capture any actions
that
> are required after the main precedure is completet.
>
> Yes, it has to appear after the task steps are completed.
>
> The definition of <postreq> in our langref is: The <postreq> element
> describes steps or tasks that the user should do after the successful
> completion of the current task.
>
> Yes, <closereqs> is indeed identically to the semantic of <postreq>.
>
> Our initial plan was just to extend the content model of <postreq> with
the
> S1000D element reqconds, to meet the machinery industry requirements.:
> Instead of:
> <!ENTITY % postreq.content "(%section.notitle.cnt;)*"
> We would have had:
> <!ENTITY % postreq.content  "(%section.notitle.cnt;)* | (%reqconds;)*"
>
> But that plan was rejected by the TC.
>
> So the only way we found to add the <closereqs><reqconds> at the correct
> place with a domain specialization, was by specializing it out of
example.
> As example has the same content model as section and as example appears
at
> the same position as closereqs has to appear. I am open to any better
> proposal to achieve the same goal.
>
> Best regards
>
> Chris
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Robert D Anderson [mailto:robander@us.ibm.com]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. Juni 2008 16:11
> An: SeicoDyne DITA
> Cc: 'dita'; 'Eliot Kimber'
> Betreff: Re: AW: [dita] Machine Industry Task question
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> > When I specialize <prelreqs> and <closereqs> from section and the
> resulting
> > content model of a mitaskbody:
>
> If closereqs is a domain element specialized from section, then it can
only
> appear in a task where section is legal. So, it can only appear at the
start
> where you also have <section>.
>
> Does the closereqs element contain a set of items that must be done after
> the task steps are completed? I'm just trying to be certain if it is, in
> fact, filling the same purpose as <postreq>.
>
> Thanks -
>
> Robert D Anderson
> IBM Authoring Tools Development
> Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
> (507) 253-8787, T/L 553-8787 (Good Monday & Thursday)
>
> "SeicoDyne DITA" <dita@seicodyne.ch> wrote on 06/26/2008 09:02:44 AM:
>
> > >> 2. If so, is the TC also OK with specializing closereqs from
> > >> example, when it is not an example? Given the close semantic
> > >> relationship between prelreqs/prereq and closereqs/postreq, are we
> > >> OK with having no defined relationship?
> >
> > >I certainly object to specializing from example in this case--it
> > >seems
> to
> > be a clear misuse of example as a base.
> > >I would certainly be very surprised when I got the default
> > >presentation
> > effect for <example> in my machine industry tasks.
> >
> > >Why can't closereqs be a specialization of section?
> >
> > To be honest, at that point I was not sure regarding the
> > specialization technique.
> > When I specialize <prelreqs> and <closereqs> from section and the
> resulting
> > content model of a mitaskbody:
> >
> >                        "(((%prelreqs;) |
> >                           (%context;) |
> >                           (%section;))*,
> >                          ((%steps; |
> >                            %steps-unordered; |
> >                            %process;))?,
> >                          (%result;)?,
> >                          (%example;)*,
> >                          (%closereqs;)*)"
> >
> > is a valid specialization, then I completely agree to specialize
> closereqs
> > from section.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Chris
> >
>