Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 24 June 2014 uploaded

[Nancy Harrison<nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com>]

        Submitter's message
        Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 24 June 2014
Recorded by N. Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:	
	https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas


regrets:   Robert Anderson, Bob Thomas, Joann Hackos 


Standing Business
=================
Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201406/msg00020.html (10 June, Nancy Harrison)   
Proposed by Kris, seconded by Don, approved by TC

Subcommittee Reports
Help Subcommittee:

Announcements
	none


Business
========
1. DITA 1.3 progress
    Re-design of "Contains and Contains by" (Anderson)
- Robert continues to make significant progress; expects to have work done by end of next week
    First spec review (Eberlein & Anderson)
    Transformation utilities and DITA 1.3 grammar files (Kimber) 
- Eliot; found/fixed a bug in DTD generation; planning to work on XSDs this week. 


2. Report from Congility 2014 (Eberlein & Priestley)
Kris talked at Congility w/Frederick Giers (sp?) about implementing contraints; his group tried to do it but finally gave up.
- Eliot; since XOpus requires use of XSDs, they're kind of stuck
- Chris; when I worked for XOpus, I would take the DTDs and transform them to XSDs...
- Kris; wrt users (and potential users) of DITA 1.3, people are particularly interested in cross-deliverable linking, key scopes, and branch filtering, plus Lightweight DITA. Priscillla Buckley (SAP) gave a good talk on using _javascript_ in creating their HTML to get more dynamic output, they're also getting slides directly from DITA (her slides were done that way); she expressed interest in donating SAP's slide work to DITA-OT.  Also, a panel on checkcom (Kris and MichaelP were on it) ended up being primarily on DITA.


3. New item: Questions about OASIS document-type shells for DITA 1.3
    https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201406/msg00019.html (Anderson, 10 June 2014) 
- (from Robert's mail); for anything we added to the tech-comm topics (task, concept, etc), we also want to add them to ditabase.
*** TC agrees by consensus.
- (from Robert's mail); 
1) For most of the tech-comm domains that are in bookmap but missing from map, we want them in map. Only uncertainty is the glossref domain, which is defined in the tech-comm section but we may only want it in bookmap.
2) For the new domains that were added to map, we also want to add them to bookmap
*** TC agrees by consensus.
- Kris; we need to have a topic in the 1.3 arch. spec. to describe what domains are in what doc shells.
- (from Robert's mail); Only uncertainty is the glossref domain, which is defined in the tech-comm section but we may only want it in bookmap.
- Kris; Jim Tivy, is there a reason glossref shouldn't be in map? I seem to remember you having an opinion on that.
- JimT; couldn't use subjectscheme because subjectref was missing from map, because it's in the classification domain.
- Kris; was that classification map isn't based off of techcomm map
- Kris; can anyone volunteer to add the domain to all the doc shells?
- Eliot; it's probably useful for me to do that. currently in my rng-generated shells, map-base includes glossref, but bookmap does not; so I need to check that and fix it.
- Kris; Eliot, I can give you templates for doc shells; we should have an item on next agenda to finalize what domains we want in all doc shells.
- Eliot; it looks like glossref is allowed in backmatter and frontmatter, but not as a peer to chapter or part.
- Kris; that would be correct.
- Eliot, if we do integrate glossref, then it would be available in expected places.
ActionItem; put on agenda for next week: finalize what domains we want in all doc shells


4. New item: How do we want to position DITA 1.3?
    How do we describe it?
    What do we want to convey?
    What are the key features that we need vendors to design support for? 
- Kris; some tools don't even support 1.2 features yet, so we need to identify the critical features so vendors will pick them up
- Eliot; we need to distinguish how much non-support is about specific features, how much about moving forward on upgrading doc shells?
- Chris; good question...
- JimT; some stuff is supported, but not easily or cleanly or with a UI; users have to go thru an XQuery to get to some features. for CMS vendors, the question is the 'fit and finish' of the UI in modeling the features.
- Tom; we (XMetaL) and SDL both support 1.2 in our latest releases, but our customers don't have the support, but because they can't afford to upgrade to current versions.
- Eliot; are there any DITA tools in common use that are incapable of supporting 1.2? 
- Jim; it's around keys; if you can load content that supports keys, you're compliant, but the support is in the editor, not UI support in the CMS, We will load and link-check keys, but not beyond that, there's no key operational support, i.e. can't do searches, etc, contextual support, 
- Kris; there are products on market that won't easily support 1.3 features without architectural changes to the products. 
- Kris; what are the features that are going to be more or less tricky for vendors to support? which ones will require most UI work to make use by users possible?
- Don; do vendors have enough user base to be providing funding for vendors to do funding for next release level?   So, wrt the question of how do we get more vendors up to the level we need, are vendors able to create the capitalization they need in order to add these new features?  how do we help them do that?
- Jim; a valid point; we all need to set priorities; we defer some features to our partners - external integration of DITA-OT - but for HTML previewing, need an internal integration of features and that's a problem; there have been mergers and acquisitions among big players in the industry recently that make it more difficult for a small company.
- Chris; so we need to do what Kris is suggesting; express what we're hearing from users, what features are most important to them; and we need to encourage users to be vocal about their needs and feature preferences to their vendors.
- Kris; as we talk about 1.3, we need to keep stressing that's what we're hearing, and also talk to users to talk to their editor and CCMS vendors
- Chris; also need to publicize what problems these features solve, so decision makers don't see them as 'esoteric' features.
- Kris; this might be an area where, once we finish confirming 1.3, we turn to both DITA Light and to supporting users by publishing content to support them in lobbying for feature support. 
- Stan; a good idea would be to complie use cases.   Also, in 1.2 we worked on what it meant to support 1.2 in a tool set; we could do that for 1.3
- Kris; we have to walk a pretty careful line with that; maybe we should leave that piece to the Adoption TC.
(To be continued next week)


5. On-going item: DITA 1.3 webinar, jointly sponsored by DITA TC and DITA Adoption TC
    https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201406/msg00008.html (Eberlein, 3 June 2014)
    https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201406/msg00010.html (Hackos, forwarded by Eberlein to DITA TC, 3 June 2014)
    https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201406/msg00015.html (3 June minutes)
Nancy; are OASIS slide templates available?
Kris; Joann was going to provide slide templates; I'll ping her on that. 


closed at 11:43


        
-- Nancy Harrison

Document Name: DITA TC Meeting Minutes 24 June 2014

---

No description provided.
Download Latest Revision
Public Download Link

---

Submitter: Nancy Harrison
Group: OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC
Folder: Meeting Notes
Date submitted: 2014-06-30 08:54:57