Re: [dita] Key scopes for subjectdef versus controlled attribute values

[Eliot Kimber <ekimber@contrext.com>]

My understanding of our decision was that attribute value validation is
always in terms of the unqualified values.

If value validation included scope values it would require map authors to
always use the same scope hierarchy for a given subject scheme map in
every map that included it. In addition, the scope qualification might not
make sense for some values.

So I think the only right answer is that value validation is done with
respect to the unqualified @keys values in the subject scheme map.

Cheers,

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




On 4/3/15, 10:13 AM, "Robert D Anderson" <robander@us.ibm.com> wrote:

>While working through action items about keys in the spec, I realized I'm
>still unclear on one thing about key scopes and subject schemes.
>
>Assume that I have my taxonomy and controlled values in a subject scheme
>map. The map is pulled into my root map with the key scope set to "tax".
>The scheme is used to set up all my taxonomy subjects, and to set
>controlled values for @audience, @platform, and @product.
>
>I can use the <subjectref> element to reference subjects. In this case I
>think it's clear that I should include the scope, because these keys
>resolve just as any other keys:
><subjectref keyref="tax.myproduct"/>
>
>I'm not clear what we determined for attribute values. Assume the subject
>scheme defines the keys "user" and "admin", then restricts @audience to
>just those values. Looking at the subject scheme in isolation, it appears
>I'm restricting @audience to the literal values "user" and "admin", which
>are also key names.
>
>The question is - in the broader context of the root map, where I've put
>my subject scheme into the key scope "tax", what values are valid for
>@audience? In topics referenced from my map, is @audience restricted to
>"user" and "admin", or is it restricted to "tax.user" and "tax.admin"? I
>think we decided it's the former because doing otherwise will be
>difficult (if not impossible) to manage. But, I feel we've gone around on
>these issues enough that I need to double check before moving forward.
>
>Thanks -
>
>Robert D Anderson
>IBM Authoring Tools Development
>Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://www.dita-ot.org/)