dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 18 October 2016 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com>
- To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 18:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
Submitter's message
ActionItems:
1. Robert will fix the errors in header files noted in public comments on Errata 01, (at least the ones he hasn't already fixed).
2. Kris will update the comment resolution log (3rd item in this item) after Robert does his work.
3. All TC members; consider LightweightDITA issues brought up in last meeting.
=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 18 October 2016
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
https://wiki.OASIS-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas
Business
========
1. Roll call
Regrets: Chris Nitchie, Scott Hudson, Joe Storbeck
2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201610/msg00056.html (Nancy Harrison, 11 October 2016)
Moved by Kris, seconded by Bob, approved by TC
3. Announcements:
New DITA TC members?
Changes to front page Wiki
Kris noted that a potential TC member had suggested changes to the front page wiki; in response she had made significant changes, which are reflected in the simplified agenda of this TC meeting, and these minutes.
4. Action items
2 August 2016:
Kris: Schedule meeting for small group working on "Upgrading" committee note (IN PROGRESS)
23 August 2016:
Joe / Kris: Get TC instance of DITAweb updated with 1.3 DTDs; restore sync with SVN (IN PROGRESS)
30 August 2016:
Kris: Begin organizing subject scheme education for TC (IN PROGRESS)
6 September 2016
Kris: Revise subject scheme example topic pulled from errata 01
4 October 2016:
Tom: Work on aggregated minutes for 2005-2011 (IN PROGRESS)
11 October 2016:
Bob: Update topic about subcommittee governance (COMPLETED)
Robert: Correct content model for dita element in base edition
- Robert; this is done
Everyone: Look at errata 01 document; should the HTML version be chunked?
Everyone: Think about possible metadata enhancements for DITA 2.0
Kris: Update learningObjectMap topic for errata 01 (COMPLETED)
5. Continuing item: DITA 1.3 Errata 01
Schedule (live link in saved agenda for this meeting)
- Kris; I updated this schedule; we're currently about 1 monoth behind. If the needed fixes get done, we should be able to approve it next week. If OASIS works fast, we can announce it at DITAEurope.
- Tom; what about LavaCon?
(Don, Dick, Tom, Keith, Dawn, and Tom are attending.)
- Kris; so we'll need attendance by everyone else next week.
[Nancy will be traveling, and Amber will also be not on call next week.]
- Kris; I may post to the TC list asking for attendance...
Announcement of public review, 6-20 October 2016
Comment resolution log for public review
Comments on TC list
None
Comments on dita-comment list
PUBLIC identifiers not included in catalog for DITA 1.3 Errata 01
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201610/msg00001.html (Rudolfo M. Raya, 11 October 2016)
Re: [dita-comment] PUBLIC identifiers not included in catalog for DITA 1.3 Errata 01
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201610/msg00002.html (Rudolfo M. Raya, 11 October 2016)
Work items:
Robert: Correct content model for DITA in base edition
Eliot:
Two public IDs changed format from 1.2 to 1.3; catalogs should be updated to include the shipped version (because we already shipped it) and the 1.2 level version (to fix any upgrade issues for 1.2-based shells). Issues are in machinery taskbody constraint and classification domain.
- Eliot; I haven't done these yet; I wasn't sure when I was supposed to do it, but I can do them this week.
- Kris; we'll add this as an action item for next week.
Discussed at TC June 7, reference email (R. Anderson): https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201606/msg00006.html
DITA 1.2 shipped "Version 1.x" level public IDs for all grammar modules. These are missing in 1.3, and should be restored in the errata.
Discussed at TC June 7, reference email (R. Anderson): https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201606/msg00006.html
- Robert; both of Rudolfo's notes are on the same subject; wrt public IDs that aren't listed in our catalog; these are mostly RNG and XSD, but his notes list files that are only in the DTDs. If we have a[n incorrect] public ID in an XSD or RNG file, it's not really a big deal, since those files don't use public IDs in any case. OTOH, the files he lists are already on our errata list. The next issue reported really is a mistake in header comment. we should just fix header comments. OTOH, we don't want people to use header comments as gospel. This is in the module file that declares deliverytarget domain. The next 3 issues all relate to headers using the named files with '1.2' rather than '1.3', as would have been correct, in the 1.3 release. These are typos. the catalogs themselvs=es are correct. So to summmarize these issues, 2 are already handled; one is a mistake in a header file, 3 are typos in a header file. so we should fix them; none are urgent, but we might as well fix them.
- Kris; How many files are involved?
- Robert; I didn't validate how many, but we should fix them everywhere
- Bob; I sent out an email to the TC list earlier with details of all of the files.
- Robert; the majority of these are DTD files mentioned in XSD/RNG header files, so 'who cares?'
- Kris; any concerns about fixing them?
ActionItem; Robert will fix the errors in header files noted in public comments on Errata 01, (at least the ones he hasn't already fixed)
ActionItem; Kris will update the comment resolution log (3rd item in this item) after Robert does his work
6. Report from Lightweight DITA subcommittee (Mark Giffin)
- Mark; DTDs in pretty decent shape, as of yesterday, have a tool done by tim brennan for doing template-based specialization, can't show that yet, idea is to make a topic, with special @s to let you run the tool and it generates schemas, e.g. RNG, XSD
- Kris; plan is to ship LD, core will be subset of current DITA elements (~35), with limited set of @s, limited reuse potential, keyrefs for phrase level reuse, conref/conkeyref? for block level reuse, plus basic idea is simplified specialization mechanism, done by template, indicating by outputclass name of element you want to create. so structual spec. allowed for topics and elements within template model; tooling constructed to take template to produce grammar files. I think current state of tooling produces an RNG.
- Mark; correct. idea is to generate all kinds of schema, not just RNG as in first version.
- Kris; DTD and XSD as well as RNG?
- Mark; yes. Some elements/@s atted to DITA only for the use of the templates
- Kris; we'll have to consider those additions/@s for considerations in adding to regular DITA for interoperability
- Mark; also not sure whether we'll have the class hierarchy in the schemas or not.
- Robert; so template creates schema without class hierarchy.? If so, there's no way to have interoperability.
- Kris; that's right, I don't see how you can have interoperability without class hierarchy.
- Mark; it's good to get this feedback; we've been working in the weeds.
- Don; we're also trying to figure out what we've created; creating a schema was beyond what I'd been expecting. The schema the template represents may come first, and the template is derived from it; i.e., is a template equal to a schema, or does it represent it for a particular use?
- Kris; the charter of LwD SC talks about coming up with simplified specialization mechanism.
- Don; I think Michael and I were approching this in 2 different ways, I think the template doesn't represent a way to create a specialization; rather, a template is an authoring setup tool, rather than a full schema.
- Kris; if there's a generated schema, it needs to have information about the specialization hierarchy.
- Robert; right, my assumption is that specialization is retained as it's meant in the current DITA world, so the class hierarchy has to come from somewhere. Possibly it could be in the grammar files. We shouldn't focus on this question too much yet. I've talked with Michael this year over various ideas for simplifying specialization; simplifying grammar files could by done by other ways than removing the class hierarchy, e.g. having just one file instead of modules.
- Mark; we're definitiely going with one file rather than modules.
- Mark; there may be a divergence between what we're doing, and what the TC expected. What did you expect of LwD?
- Stan; there seem to be 2 disconnects; 1) what does it mean to be lightweight? 2. what does it mean to be interoperable? You're creating a target for authoring, where other formats could be consumed. a solution that would allow folks to author in Word and go into a DITA pipeline. Interoperability is to both other formats and also to DITA.
- Mark; I agree. what we're doing is first plannig to get a simplified version and specification out there for people to use. It won't be Markdown at this moment, we're cutting down so we can get something out the door.
- Kris; what I see here is simplified XML, but within the current user community, when they think LwD, they're thinking of a DITA subset to improve tooling, easier access to tooling, but continued interop with people who use a fuller DITA. To the extent that LwD is a proper subset of DITA, we have that, but only if we add your new elements back into DITA.
- Dawn; I agree, that's what I'm hearing, a simpler, smaller set of the full DITA specification, so folks can use it more quickly.
- Keith; one of Michael's comments yesterday was "since specializing regular DITA is not easy, the LwD method is to create templates, a way of trying to reduce complexity in allow other communities to enter the DITA environment. The question is whether the way to reduce complexity is to add more [targeted] elements.
- Kris; wow, I see some potential complexity, and we need to address it full on. There could be many new elements, so do we want this? Or do we end up with an infinite array of specialization. elements? What if you have 10 mktg. groups within a company, and they each create new templates with disparate new elements?
- Robert; that's what usually happens in companies, most folks just go out and create their own. Making specialization easier will result in more specialization, but not interoperable ones. Not such a great idea.
- Kris; if this is the direction we're going in, we have to be careful about how we present this, since we've already presented it as a subset with a smaller number of elements. Especially since it could be potentially part of 2.0, we neeed to look at its items and approaches.
- Tom; I agree
- Mark; let me summarize what I'm hearing: one of main expectations is that we'd have simplified XML based on subset of current DITA that would also work with existing tooling and editors, that will just work, but simplified so people can get going, and there will also be a spec mechanism associated with it. Yes?
- Kris; as TC chair and as an attendee at various Lwd meetings, I thought there were several objectives; 1) a starter subset, 2) a simplified spec model, 3) multiple potential output formats, though we only talked about HTML and Markdown, not Word. Seems to me a lot of the larger community expectation is around a DITA-usable subset.
- Keith; a big objective was reaching outside of the regular techcomm community, so e.g. mktg. So far, that hasn't been represented in DITA. This template is an example of that.
- Kris; everyone, please participate on list, and come to next meeting
12 noon ET close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]