OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

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


Subject: RE: [dita] Terminology issues: use of @attribute


I'll leave the definitions to others, but I wanted to address this item:

> BTW, I see little consistency in this use of @; some topics say "the
> value of @foo" and others say "the value of the <keyword>foo</
> keyword> attribute". I followed the latter model before noticing this.

In editing the language spec for 1.2, I noticed that this was not
consistent, and many reviewers asked to remove the @ value. First, it was
often already indicated that the value was an attribute (Attributes such as
@this and @that...). Second, the notation is meaningless to many less
technical readers. So, I tried to always refer to "Attribute this" rather
than "@this".

As for putting attribute names in a keyword - I think there is less
consistency there, at least in the language spec - I did not do a pass over
it trying to unify the values. Some used <keyword> around the name, some
did not. The formatters used to create drafts so far do not add any styling
to keyword, so it is difficult to notice the inconsistency unless scanning
the source.

Robert D Anderson
IBM Authoring Tools Development
Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit

"Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <bnevin@cisco.com> wrote on 12/03/2009 03:39:47 PM:

> "Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <bnevin@cisco.com>
> 12/03/2009 03:39 PM
>
> To
>
> "Kristen James Eberlein" <kris@eberleinconsulting.com>
>
> cc
>
> "DITA TC" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
>
> Subject
>
> RE: [dita] Terminology issues: Linking and addressing terms?
> Referencing and referenced element?
>
> Just one slip:
> An element that references another DITA element by specifying an
> addressing [element ==> attribute].
> I do agree that examples are very helpful, but personally, I think
> they belong in the more detailed topics where they are in fact
> given. But that's just me, and if others feel the need, then ipso
> facto the need is there. Examples are not unheard of in definitions.
> Or as an alternative, could we link to a topic which provides
> examples and further links? Or is that not kosher? Something like
> the following:
>
> referenced element
> An element that is referenced by another DITA element. For examples, see
> Title of topic. See also referencing element.
>
> The phrase "an address" seems too inspecific here:
>
> addressing attribute
> An attribute, such as @conref, @conkeyref, @keyref, and @href, that
> can be used to specify the address of a DITA element.
> [or, maybe a little more plainly and with less repetition of words:
> to specify the location of a DITA element]
>
> BTW, I see little consistency in this use of @; some topics say "the
> value of @foo" and others say "the value of the <keyword>foo</
> keyword> attribute". I followed the latter model before noticing this.
>
>     /B
>
> From: Kristen James Eberlein [mailto:kris@eberleinconsulting.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 2:48 PM
> Cc: DITA TC
> Subject: Re: [dita] Terminology issues: Linking and addressing
> terms? Referencing and referenced element?

> If we are defining terms, we need to follow conventions for
> glossaries. That means that a definition-list entry should be a
> definition. How about the following? And is including examples
> something that we want to do?
>
> Bruce, I do agree that these two entities -- referencing element and
> referenced element -- always exist as a pair; neither can exist as
> an autonomous entity ...
> referenced element
> An element that is referenced by another DITA element. See also
> referencing element.
> Example
> The following code sample is from the installation-reuse.dita topic.
> The <step> element that it contains is a referenced element; other
> DITA topics can reference the <step> element by using the @conref
attribute.
> <step id="run-startcmd-script">
>    <cmd>Run the startcmd script that is applicable to your
> operating-system environment.</cmd>
> </step>
> referencing element
>           An element that references another DITA element by
> specifying an addressing element. See also referenced element and
> addressing attribute.
> Example
> The following <step> element is a referencing element. It uses the
> @conref attribute to reference a <step> element in the installation-
> reuse.dita topic.
> <step conref="installation-reuse.dita#reuse/run-startcmd-script>
>    <cmd/>
> </step>
> addressing attribute
> An attribute, such as @conref, @conkeyref, @keyref, and @href, that
> can be used to specify an address.
> Kris
>
> Bruce Nevin (bnevin) wrote:
> Kris wrote:
> My analysis of the problem is:
> The two definitions are circular.
> We are trying to cram way too much information into a definition
> These two definitions are reciprocal because together they define a
> relationship. I don't find that dizzying, but that may be because
> (in linguistics) I'm used to thinking of relationships which are not
> easy to TalkAboutAllAtOnceInOneExpression so we talk about one
> aspect at a time. When I see a reciprocal definition I pop up a
> level to think about the relationship. But that doesn't make it good
> clear writing practice for every reader!
>
> I agree with simplifying by putting the list of attributes
> elsewhere. I said that the addressing attributes "include" those
> listed as a hedge against incomplete recollection. Another tack
> would be to say "the most important of the addressing attributes
are ...".
>
> Jeff, I dropped @codebase from the list because it (optionally)
> supports the addressing attributes on <object>, but does not itself
> address a referenced element. But under the last proposal above we
> could drop the entire <object> set from the list.
>
> I agree that we should not use "target" in any form. Nominal and
> verbal uses are also equivocal over the two points of view -- the
> target of the link vs. the target of the content. We know we're
> talking about a link addressing a "target" element but in some
> contexts readers think of content being reused at a "target"
> element's location. (I don't think it's an audience problem so much
> as a context problem. We have seen both senses in the spec. and the ref.)
>
> Going back to the first point, suppose we start each definition by
> asserting the relationship explicitly. Maybe something like this:
>
> Referencing element
> Content reuse requires a relationship between a referencing element
> and a referenced element. An attribute on the referencing element is
> set to the address of the referenced element.
> Example:
> ...
> See referenced element; addressing attribute.
>
> Referenced element
> Content reuse requires a relationship between a referencing element
> and a referenced element. The address of the referenced element is
> specified in the value of an attribute on the referencing element.
> Example:
> ...
> See referencing element; addressing attribute.
> ______________________________________________
>
> I assume here that we omit the <object> attributes from the list.
>
> We don't have to say everything in each single definition. Although
> DITA dogma says a glossary entry is a concept, definitions seldom
> stand alone. I simplified "addressing attribute" to "attribute"
> because "see addressing attribute" provides the necessary
> information if the reader wants it.
>
>     /Bruce
>
> From: Ogden, Jeff [mailto:jogden@ptc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 12:12 PM
> To: Kara Warburton; Joann Hackos
> Cc: Bruce Nevin (bnevin); DITA TC; Eliot Kimber; Kristen James Eberlein
> Subject: RE: [dita] Terminology issues: Linking and addressing
> terms? Referencing and referenced element?

> The list of “addressing” attributes isn’t complete.  It might be
> better to skip the list of addressing attributes and just make the
> definition something like this:
> An element that targets another DITA element by using an addressing
> attribute such as @href, @conref, @keyref, and @conkeyref.
> More important than the definitions is using the terminology
> correctly elsewhere in the DITA spec. and avoiding the terms source
> and target.
> But if we feel compelled to include a list of all of the
> “addressing” attributes, then as mentioned in previous e-mails, the
> list needs to include at least:
> @href, @conref, @keyref, @conkeyref
> @conrefend
> @mapref, @longdescref, and @anchorref
> and possibly @archive, @classid, @codebase, and @data (all on <object>)
>     -Jeff
> From: Kara Warburton [mailto:kara@ca.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 9:47 AM
> To: Joann Hackos
> Cc: Bruce Nevin (bnevin); DITA TC; Eliot Kimber; Ogden, Jeff;
> Kristen James Eberlein
> Subject: Re: [dita] Terminology issues: Linking and addressing
> terms? Referencing and referenced element?
> A few suggestions if you are open to something cleaner and which
> adheres to terminology best practices. Since the 2nd defintion
> proposed by Kristen already contained the word "target", I tried
> this as the verb in the definitions rather than "address" which I
> find ambiguous. The main change is not to repeat what the
> referencing element does in the definition of the referenced
> element. Also, please lower case the terms. There should also be a
> cross reference in both entries.
>
> I also would prefer to remove the list of attributes if they can be
> grouped into a definition elsewhere as suggested by Kirsten. I've
> modelled that below in the 2nd proposal but I don't know enough
> about these attributes to know if it is correct.
>
> First proposal - attributes listed in definition of referencing element
>
> referencing element
> An element that targets another DITA element by using one of the
> following attributes:
> @ conkeyref
> @conref
> @href
> @keyref
> See also referenced element.
>
> referenced element
> An element that is the target of another DITA element. See also
> referencing element.
> Second proposal - separating attributes to their own entry
>
> referencing element
> An element that targets another DITA element by using an addressing
> attribute. See also referenced element.
>
> referenced element
> An element that is the target of another DITA element. See also
> referencing element.
>
> addressing attribute
> One of the following attributes, which are used by a referencing
> element to target a referenced element:
> @ conkeyref
> @conref
> @href
> @keyref
>
> Kara Warburton
> IBM Terminology
> Office: 905-413-2170
> Mobile: 905-717-8014
>
> IBM terminology: http://w3.ibm.com/standards/terminology
> Education about IBM terminology: http://w3.tap.ibm.com/medialibrary/
> media_set_view?id=4981
>
> [image removed] Joann Hackos ---12/03/2009 08:47:07 AM---I really
> think we need examples here ― the definitions are too circular,
> which isn’t surprising cons
>
> [image removed]
> From:
>
> [image removed]
> Joann Hackos <joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com>
>
> [image removed]
> To:
>
> [image removed]
> Kristen James Eberlein <kris@eberleinconsulting.com>, "Bruce Nevin
(bnevin)"
> <bnevin@cisco.com>
>
> [image removed]
> Cc:
>
> [image removed]
> "Ogden, Jeff" <jogden@ptc.com>, Eliot Kimber <ekimber@reallysi.com>, DITA
TC
> <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
>
> [image removed]
> Date:
>
> [image removed]
> 12/03/2009 08:47 AM
>
> [image removed]
> Subject:
>
> [image removed]
> Re: [dita] Terminology issues: Linking and addressing terms?
> Referencing and referenced element?
>
>
>
>
> I really think we need examples here — the definitions are too
> circular, which isn’t surprising considering the concept is
> circular. You need three elements to make a concept understandable:
> a definition, an example, and a non-example. We have the first part,
> but are missing the example and maybe the non-example.
>
> I recommend an example — that would easily clarify the idea we’re
> trying to convey.
> JoAnn
>
>
> On 12/3/09 5:32 AM, "Kristen James Eberlein" <kris@eberleinconsulting.com
> > wrote:
> Ouch. I think we have a problem here. I look at the two definitions
> and find them VERY difficult to mentally parse. If I have problems
> with them -- and I've been spending most of the last six months
> working on DITA full-time, then I think a lot of other people will also.
>
> My analysis of the problem is:
> 1. The two definitions are circular.
> 2. We are trying to cram way too much information into a definition
> Here's what I put in the terminology.dita topic yesterday morning as
> a temporary placeholder:
>
> Referencing element
> An element which specifies one of the following DITA attributes in
> order to address another DITA element:
> @conkeyref attribute
> @conref attribute
> @href attribute
> @keyref attribute
> Referenced element
> An element that is referenced by another DITA element (the
> referencing element). The referencing element specifies one of the
> following DITA attributes:
> @conkeyref attribute
> @conref attribute
> @href attribute
> @keyref attribute
> The referenced element is the target of the DITA attribute.
>
> Obviously I didn't have a complete list of the relevant attributes ...
>
> Now I have to go and look up information about attributes that are
> unfamiliar to me (@mapref, @longdescref, @anchorref), and well as
> the <object> element :(
>
> I do find "addressing attribute" to be a potentially useful and
> descriptive term for the particular groups of attributes. Some of
> these attributes fall into the "id-atts attribute group"; one of my
> review comments during the last review was to suggest that we use
> more descriptive names for the groups of attributes, rather than the
> names of the literal parameter entities that are used to organize
> the attribute declarations. We won't be doing this for DITA 1.2, but
> it's definitely something that we need to consider for DITA 1.3. See
> http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/LangRefAttributes if you want to
> follow the review thread.
>
> Kris
>
> Bruce Nevin (bnevin) wrote:
>
> Then maybe this rev. 3 has got it:
>
> Referencing element
> An element that identifies a referenced element in the value of an
> addressing attribute. The addressing attributes include href,
> conref, conrefend, keyref, conkeyref, mapref, longdescref, and
> anchorref. See referenced element. This term may also be used for an
> <object> element insofar as its archive, classid, and data
> attributes are used to specify the data, resources, and
> implementation of a non-XML object.
>
> Referenced element
> The element that a referencing element identifies in the value of
> one of the addressing attributes. The addressing attributes include
> href, conref, conrefend, keyref, conkeyref, mapref, longdescref, and
> anchorref. See referencing element.
>
> ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø
>
> Does this hook us into making "addressing attribute" a defined term?
> I hope we can stop with defining it locally like this.
>
> I don't know if we actually use source/target anywhere that we talk
> about <object> (we don't seem to in the lang ref), but someone might
> use referring/referenced in the future. I omitted @codebase since it
> only sets a base URL to which the other URLs are relative (when that
> base URL is other than that of the current document).
>
> Question:
> The "text description of the graphic or object" that @longdescref
> references--is that text contained in a DITA element? If not (or if
> not necessarily) it might call for an "also used" sentence like that
> for @archive, etc.
>

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ogden, Jeff [mailto:jogden@ptc.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 4:44 PM
> To: Eliot Kimber; Bruce Nevin (bnevin); Kristen James Eberlein
> Cc: dita
> Subject: RE: [dita] Terminology issues: Linking and
> addressing terms? Referencing and referenced element?
>
> Bruce Nevin wrote:
>
> one of the following attributes: href, conref, keyref,
>
> conkeyref ...
>
> [complete the list].
>
> Eliot Kimber wrote:
>
> Add conrefend and I think the list of addressing attributes is
>
> complete.
>
> These need to be on the list too: @mapref, @longdescref, and
> @anchorref
>
> I'm less sure about: @archive, @classid, @codebase, and
> @data all on <object>
>
> And without more research, I can't be sure that there aren't
> a few more tucked away that I don't remember. The above is
> everything from a list I made and last updated in June 2007.
>
> -Jeff

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eliot Kimber [mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 12:59 PM
> To: Bruce Nevin (bnevin); Kristen James Eberlein
> Cc: dita
> Subject: Re: [dita] Terminology issues: Linking and
>
> addressing terms?
>
> Referencing and referenced element?
>
> On 12/2/09 11:05 AM, "Bruce Nevin (bnevin)"
>
> <bnevin@cisco.com> <mailto:bnevin@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Here's a straw man for starters:
>
> Referencing element
> The element which identifies its referenced element in
>
> the value of
>
> one
>
> of the following attributes: href, conref, keyref, conkeyref ...
> [complete the list]. See referenced element.
>
> Referenced element
> The element which is identified in a referencing element by the
>
> value
>
> of
>
> one of the following attributes: href, conref, keyref,
>
> conkeyref ...
>
> [complete the list]. See referencing element.
>
> Whale away at it!
>
> C/which/that/
>
> Add conrefend and I think the list of addressing attributes is
>
> complete.
>
> Cheers,
>
> E.
> --
> Eliot Kimber
> Senior Solutions Architect
> "Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together"
> Main: 610.631.6770
> www.reallysi.com <http://www.reallysi.com>
> www.rsuitecms.com <http://www.rsuitecms.com>
>
>

>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the
>
> OASIS TC that
>
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

>
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>

>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>

>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php


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