Re: [dita] Evaluation of the subject scheme review

[Eliot Kimber <ekimber@contrext.com>]

There shouldn't be any issue with using key-based references to topics
from subject definitions--the same rules for resolving keys (and not
having circular key references) must still apply. Of course, since
subject-defining topicrefs are resource-only, there's not a compelling
reason to use keys for references to the defining resources unless the
same resource is used by multiple subjects (which would call the
sensibility of your taxonomy into question, since you'd expect a given
definition to apply to exactly one subject).

When a subject scheme is processed as a normal DITA map, the key
processing is as it is for any other map. It is in the processing of a
subject scheme as a set of enumerated values used to match to attribute
values that the interpretations of the keys might be different.

But the addressing-related rules for keys must be the same as for all
other maps.

And I will say that I did closely read the subject scheme topics for 1.2
and in the process of writing the chapter on subject schemes in DITA for
Publishers. But it all made sense to me (I had questions about the design
choices made but not questions about what the spec said the design meant).
And we certainly didn't have the luxury of rethinking the writing for DITA
1.2.

Cheers,

E.
—————
Eliot Kimber, Owner
Contrext, LLC
http://contrext.com




On 2/6/15, 12:11 PM, "Kristen James Eberlein"
<kris@eberleinconsulting.com> wrote:

>
>  
>
>    
>  
>  
>    It was very interesting to evaluate the comments made in the review
>    of the subject scheme material. Several points became very clear:
>    
>      
>        
>* It was the first time that most people had read this
>          content, and probably the first time that it has been
>          reviewed.
>        
>        
>* The draft 1.3 topics contained some examples that illustrate
>          processor behavior that is either not described normatively or
>          described in inadequate detail. I'm working on this, but will
>          definitely need help. There also are limits to what we can do
>          and get DITA 1.3 out this year.
>        
>* The draft 1.3 topics focus primarily on controlled values
>          and do not discuss (much) what can be done with taxonomic
>          subjects, especially in conjunction with the classification
>          domain. I think we'll just need to accept this as a
>          shortcoming for 1.3.
>        
>* Keys and key references function differently in the context
>          of subjectScheme maps. This is especially evident in the
>          following situations, and I think we must clarify our
>          collective, TC stance about the expected processing of @keyref
>          in the context of a subject scheme:
>        
>        
>     
>          
>     * Using <schemeref> to extend an enumeration of
>            controlled values or to broaden subject categories
>     
>          
>     * Using an addressing attribute to link to a detailed
>            explanation of a subject from a <subjectdef> element.
>            Here I think one must use @href; using @keyref would open up
>            the possibility of lots of circular processing.
>     
>        
>        
>* If subject scheme maps have special rules for processing
>          @keyref, do they also have special rules for key scopes? Are
>          key scopes even valid for subject scheme maps?
>        
>        
>     
>        
>      
>
>      Back story:
>      
>      
>        
>* There was one subjectScheme topic in the 1.2 Architectural
>
>            Spec, and then lots of material in the Language
>            Reference examples. For 1.3, I broke the content into
>          multiple topics, and moved material out of the (non-normative)
>          examples in the Language Reference.
>        
>* The original spec material had been taken from proposals
>          drafted by Erik Hennum (IBM), who left IBM before 1.2 was
>          released. Erik's tendency was to define through example,
>          which is how so many of the rules and processor expectations
>          ended up in the Language Reference examples.
>      
>
>      -- 
>        Best,
>        Kris
>        
>        Kristen James Eberlein
>        Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
>        Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
>        www.eberleinconsulting.com <http://www.eberleinconsulting.com>
>        +1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype)
>        
>      
>      
>    
>    
>  
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
>
>