RE: [dita] L&T diagrams

Hi there,

The page probably needs to make reference to the new learning Map types.

I can provide some feedback on this but not until Thursday…hope that’s OK.

Best Regards,

Doug

=======================================

Doug Burgess

Business Platform Management and Operations

Knowledge & Enablement Solutions, SAP Canada

doug.burgess@sap.com

Work: 604-974-2334 Mobile: 778-840-8004

Vancouver BC

Canada

From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Kristen James Eberlein
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 2:40 PM
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [dita] L&T diagrams

We also have to be careful to not make material changes.

Best,
Kris

Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
www.eberleinconsulting.com
+1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype)

On 7/24/2015 5:38 PM, Hackos, Joann wrote:

Hi Tom,

I think John Hunt ought to take a look at these. I believe he created them originally since they go way back to the original L&T design work. I would also ask Mark Meyer to take a look since we now have a new learning map structure.

JoAnn

JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD

President

Comtech Services Inc.

710 Kipling Street, Suite 400

Denver, CO 80215

Joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com

303-232-7586

We will be hosting the CIDM Online Conference on July 29, 2015 More information is available: https://forum.infomanagementcenter.com

From: Tom Magliery <tom.magliery@justsystems.com>
Date: Friday, July 24, 2015 at 3:09 PM
To: DITA TC <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [dita] L&T diagrams

I'd like to hear (perhaps off-list) from someone intimately familiar with the content and the two diagrams in this portion of the DITA spec:

2.8.3 A learning objects approach to learning and training content

http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/dita/v1.3/csprd01/part3-all-inclusive/archSpec/learningTraining/lc_spec_Overview_assumptions.html

I'm working on prettying up the graphics throughout the spec, and I don't know enough about this content to know how much leeway I might have on these two diagrams. My questions are along the lines of: Are any apparent grammatical inconsistencies actually significant terminology? Can any text change without substantively changing the diagram? Are aspects of the layout (such as the shapes and arrangements of objects) significant to someone in this domain of expertise?

Thanks,

mag

dita message