dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 30 August 2016 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com>
- To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:48:46 -0700 (PDT)
Submitter's message
ActionItems:
1. Nancy: Submit minutes ASAP.
2. Kris: Open TC Admin ticket to start a 15-day public review.
3. Eric; work on language for learningObjectMap content model topic.
4. Kris; begin work on subjectscheme presentation.
5. all TC members; review errata01 public review draft
=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 30 August 2016
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
https://wiki.OASIS-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas
Regrets: Dick Hamilton, Tom Magliery, Dawn Stevens
Standing Business
=================
Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201608/msg00094.html (Nancy Harrison, 23 August 2016)
Proposed by Kris, seconded by Joe, approved by TC
Business
========
1. Action items
2 August 2016:
Eliot: Modify grammar files to address MathML issue (COMPLETED)
Robert: Produce initial draft of "DITA and DITA-OT" committee note
Robert; starting to work on this
Kris: Schedule meeting for small group working on "Upgrading" committee note (IN PROGRESS)
Kris; sent email to group
23 August 2016:
Kris: Provide Joe with contact at Mekon/DITAweb (COMPLETED)
Joe: Get TC instance of DITAweb updated with 1.3 DTDs; restore sync with SVN
Joe; haven't heard anyting back to the email I sent.
Robert: Add simplify directory structure for grammar files to DITA 2.0 backlog (COMPLETED)
2. Announcements:
New DITA TC members: None
3. Continuing item: DITA 1.3 errata
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DITA%201.3%20Errata
DITA-1.3-errata-schedule
Team members:
Editors: Robert Anderson and Kris Eberlein
Style sheets: Bob Thomas
Build: Nancy Harrison and Bob Thomas
Reviews: Joe Storbeck
Google analytics: Keith Schengili-Roberts
Summary of work completed in last week:
DITAweb review and DITA source
Style sheets
Build
Review:
Download package from https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/58714/latest/dita-v1.3-errata01-csd01.zip
Review page: DITA-1.3-errata01
Update from volunteers
Bob; there were some irregularities in DTDs; Robert created a script to allow for that; I also fixed a problem with DITA bundling, changed the keys file to make it work. The build now works without needing access to our production grammar.
Kris; Bob had put some substitution for replacing OASIS variables, while still making it possible to build on the OASIS website.
Kris; also, I fixed the topic on change marking, and pulled out the topic on subjectscheme and processing, since we hadn't had time to really verify it. That topic can be a candidate for errata 02.
4. Motion for vote: "I move that the TC approve DITA Version 1.3 Errata 01 and all associated artifacts packaged together in https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=58796&wg_abbrev=dita as an Errata Draft to DITA Version 1.3 OASIS Standard approved on 17 December 2015 and confirm that the errata corrections do not constitute Substantive Changes to the Standard."
Motion moved by Kris, seconded by Robert
Voting Results: motion passed, 13 - 0
Yes: 13 (Anderson, Bissantz, Day, Doherty, Eberlein, Essig, Harrison, Kimber, Nitchie, Schengili-Roberts, Sirois, Storbeck, Thomas)
No 0
5. Motion for vote: "I move that the TC approve submitting DITA Version 1.3 Errata 01 contained in https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=58797&wg_abbrev=dita for a 15 day public review."
Motion moved by Kris, seconded by Robert
Voting Results: motion passed, 13 - 0
Yes: 13 (Anderson, Bissantz, Day, Doherty, Eberlein, Essig, Harrison, Kimber, Nitchie, Schengili-Roberts, Sirois, Storbeck, Thomas)
No 0
6. Associated action items:
1. Nancy: Submit minutes ASAP.
2. Kris: Open TC Admin ticket to start a 15-day public review.
Kris; everyone should also review the draft. Hopefully we won't have to change anything, but if anyone notices a typo or something, we can fix it.
7. New item: Issue with learningObjectMap content model
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201608/msg00068.html (Sirois, 17 August 2016)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201608/msg00069.html (Eberlein, 17 August 2016)
Kris; this is a separate issue from the errata 01 L&T issue.
Eric; it was something reported by France Baril; in the text of architecture spec, we've documented that learningobject should only appear once in a learningObjectMap, but the grammar doesn't agree with that. In order to do make them agree, we would need to make a substantive grammar change. So we need to discuss here. We can either change content models - a lot of work and a 'substantive' change - or change the written spec to match grammar files.
Kris; before 1.3, we had language in the spec that said 'the written spec is normative', but that was changed at 1.3 because OASIS mandates grammar files as normative. So our only real choice is to change the spec topic in language reference for learningmap for errata 02.
Eric; real questions is, does allowing more than one learningObject become a real problem for any users?
Eliot; btw, this is probably my fault; when I moved things from DTDs to RNG, I didn't catch this nuance.
Eric; it could easily be dealt with via a schematron rule.
Eliot; of course, we could fix it in practice; both learninggroupmap and learningobjectmap came from SAP, if they really need to constrain it, they certainly could.
Kris; that being said, 3 work items:
1. we need a volunteer to look at langref topic and suggest the exact wording to change.
2. we need to consider whether we want to do any schematron rules or anything else to modify langref for errata 02.
3. we need reply to France on dita-users to let her know about what we'll be doing.
Kris; I'll reply to France and explain what we're doing.
Eric; I'll verify text in errata and provide new text.
Amber; if there are schematron rules, shouldn't that be an Adoption TC work item, rather than a DITA TC thing?
Kris; probably
Nancy; should we officially notify the Adoption TC?
Keith; can't hurt to pass on this info to Adoption TC. That group has talked about coming up with generic notice of style guidelines.
Kris; the only reason for DITA TC to say osmething, is if we actually thought having just one was an essential part of the design, and now it's not that way. Is it incumbent on us to tell people how to deal with that?
Bob; the same thing happened with the machinery task; it was a parallel sort of problem.
Kris; we fixed that by adding an example to the spec. But implementing a constraint for this is not easy, so we can't fix it that way. Does anyone know how important this was?
Eric; it makes sense for it to only allow one. But I don't know if it would violate the fundatmental nature of learningObjectMap to have two.
Robert; in following up on another L&T issue, I talked to John Hunt; he wasn't even sure why that constraint was there. This may be the same, so it may not be easy to find out what the original intent was.
Kris; let's leave this on the agenda till next week. At that point, Eric can make language suggestions for the topic, and if anyone else has comments, we'll deal with them at that time.
ActionItem: Eric will work on language for learningObjectMap content model topic.
8. Continuing item: Work on committee notes
Update to "Why Three Editions"
"Upgrading to a new version of DITA"
"DITA the standard versus DITA Open Toolkit"
Kris; sent mail to team working on 'upgrading' article
9. New item: Open items about subject scheme; how best to proceed
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201608/msg00129.html (Eberlein, 30 August 2016)
Kris; re; my earlier email today, I think we need to get more people on the TC more comfortable with subjectscheme. Would folks be interested in some education on the topic?
['yes' from Deb, Maria, Stan, Bob]
Chris; Want to note that the subjects we're been discussing wrt subjectscheme are subjects that are only used on the fringes. [analogy of 1st floor vs 2nd-3rd floor]
Robert; these may be 4th and 5th floor...
Kris; I don't any SS details go up past 4th-5th floors, but given how few implementations are actually out there (currently only Oxygen, DITA-OT, and Titania), it's an important discussion for us to have - the community has lots of questions. I'm willing to do a presentation. Eliot or Chris, do you have anything available you could contribute?
Eliot; I don't have much prepared; but I could talk on my unterstanding of the taxonomy and ontology of it.
Chris; likewise, I have nothing prepared, but I'd be happy to take part.
Amber; there are 2 aspects to this;
1. technical side; how does it work,
2. equally important, what are people doing with it? what use cases does it address? Because people don't understand why they would use it.
Kris; to make this more manageable, we need to separate the two aspects.
1. controlled values for attributes
2. for ontology and classification
Amber; if we can identify use cases, we can organize the discussion.
Kris; the SS items open on our agenda focus on controlled values, enumeration and how keyscopes play with SS. I'll start working on this, with help from Eliot and Chris for defining edge cases that are impinging on this. And I'll reach out to Amber for use cases.
Amber; mine are mostly in the L&T space.
Stan; I have some general use cases available also.
ActionItem: Kris will begin work on subjectscheme presentation.
[continued till next week]
Other items:
Kris; everyone, please download latest public review draft errata01 and review it.
Eliot, what's the difference between the public review draft and the committee draft?
Kris; OASIS naming details only.
Eliot; I reviewed the committee draft and found 2 formatting issues
Bob; I got your comments and corrected those.
Kris; fyi, use 'csprd01' draft for review.
11:49 ET Close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]