dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 10 January 2017 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com>
- To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 19:07:19 -0800 (PST)
Submitter's message
Action Items: none recorded
=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 10 January 2017
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
https://wiki.OASIS-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas
Business
========
1. Roll call
Regrets: Maria Essig, Scott Hudson
2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201612/msg00114.html (Nancy Harrison, 20 December 2016)
moved by Kris, seconded by Dick, approved by TC
3. Announcements:
- New TC members: Antóin Ó Slatara, Dell
- DITA 1.3 Errata 01 released on 20 December 2017 (although cover page date is 25 October 2016)
- OASIS ballot on Business Document Naming and Design Rules V1.0 is open
Have voted: Eberlein Consulting, Healthwise, IXIASOFT, JustSystems, Virginia Tech
Not yet voted: Bluestream, Comtech, IBM, Oberon Technologies
Internal link for voting members: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/voting/ballot.php?id=3029
Publicly visible link: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ballot.php?id=3029
4. Action items
23 August 2016:
Joe / Kris: Get TC instance of DITAweb updated with 1.3 DTDs; restore sync with SVN (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)
18 October 2016:
Eliot: Restore DITA 1.x identifiers to catalog files (Moved to errata 02)
25 October 2016
Deb: Develop FAQ for folks new to DITA TC (IN PROGRESS)
20 December 2017
Bob: Send out link to document about Denver listening session (completed)
All TC members: Review slides about iiRDS
Keith and Stan: Investigate whether US and Canadian companies can get R & D tax credit for working on standards
- Stan sent out mail; Keith is looking into Canadian situation)
Dick and Stan: Gather info about Google summer of code 2017
- Dick sent out mail about Google 'summer of code' [COMPLETED]
5. New item: High-level plan for 2017
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201701/msg00030.html (Eberlein, 10 January 2017)
Kris went over her mail (above); upcoming major issues to deal with fall into 3 major categories;
1. DITA 2.0
2. Lightweight DITA
3. long-term health of the DITA TC
1. DITA 2.0
Robert; think proposal process for 1.3 worked pretty well; we should use the same for 2.0; might want to add section on incompatibility changes, and/or migration changes.
Kris; good idea.
Robert; conformance clause; I took a action item last spring on new conforamnce clause; TAB (OASIS Tech. Advisory Bd) didn't like our conformance statement in 1.3, so we need to start with a different one and work from there. So pretty radical re-write of conformance statement is in KAVI
Kris; everyone please look at Robert's new statement, with OASIS' guidelines on conformance statements
Robert; 'conformance clause should be a list of every normative statement in spec and how they need to be complied with. This new one heads in that direction, laying them out based on arch spec. Needs links to appropriate sections in arch spec
Kris; but it requires a re-org of arch spec as well
Robert; we did some of that in 1,3m, but still work to do; very much a first draft; will change as features change
Kris; any other comments
Bob; i like the 'simplify, reorg, repair, redesign. tag. delivering 'base' still makes sense to me; think techcomm SC should take responsibiity for maintaining that part.
Kris; that would be great; would love to hear fromthat "SC how they plan to do that. we've run into problems with having techcomm tied to the base; planned changes to troubleshooting can't go in until 2.0..
2. Lightweight DITA (LwD):
Kris; how to go forward? what do we need from LwD SC in order to go forward? Now the SC's loose plan is to put our a profile release prior to 2.0. But the TC hasn't approved it, and even though SC does the substantive work, it still has to be reviewed and approved by the TC. What do we need from the SC in order to approve the design? The TC needs to consider;
- new multimedia domain,
- will SC LwD includes new @s for specialization in first delivery of LwD?; if so, would we fold those @s into base DITA, or not?
Carlos; I think it's important to formalize the way that the TC approves LwD. The SC got disconnected from the main TC in making progress. We need to have alignment with TC.
Kris; we can touch on some of those in later agenda item (#6). Our proposal templates for 1.3 don't align well with LwD. So it's hard for you to use them. But we've been working on this; I asked the SC to write up a committee note, with the TC as its initial audience, to serve as, effectively, its stage 2 proposal for LwD. The equivalent of a stage 3 proposal will be a completed spec for LwD. The entire TC needs to review both of these deliverables.
Carlos; for now, our main deliverable is the committee note; so we will stop tinkering with other stuff and focus on that.
Kris; focus on laying out the design clearly, clarifying all components, issues, etc., so the TC can make an informed decision.
Robert; our stage 2 & 3 proposal templates don't align with LwD, because LwD is too big for a proposal, it's a complete system. Trying to adapt our method to such a large body of work would be a problem. I think the CN we need would be more like a collection of stage 1 proposals.
Nancy; also, we (the DITA TC) will need to be involved in draft reviews of the LwD 'spec' (i.e., the committee note and draft specs, as they develop), rather than just the final LwD spec.
Robert; that makes a lot of sense when we consider this (LwD) as a complete spec.
Kris; that's the path we have to follow; just as we had numerous reviews of 1.3 content, we need to do the same with LwD.
Carlos; that's not really scary; last year we got sidetracked by making things to show to the public; this is just getting back on track.
Kris; we'll be glad to help. Also ,it's time for TC members who haven't been involved with LwD to get involved. LwD will potentially include new elements and @s to support template-based specialization; how these new things interact is also a consideration.
Stan; LwD may have a different expanded audience; we need to investigate that. e.g., in my company, we want to move some of the content creation to the other communities (engineering, mktg), and they're looking to do their authoring in HTML5 or Markdown. So we'll want LwD to be usable by non-XML authoring communities, and we'll want LwD to get reviewed by people in those communities.
3. Long range health of TC:
Kris; how do we increase active participation from non-active TC members? How do we get vendors who aren't currently OASIS members to join and begin to participate in TC work? How do we keep from developing in a vacuum? How do we spread the workload more evenly among TC members?
Bob; for the first 2 bullet items, we need to come up with some sort of recruiting strategy.
Kris; I agree; I was trying to do some of that at the European conferences in November. This is also tied to the issue of spreading the workload. We're limited in the amount of work we can get done with the current level of participation.
Stan; many companies are showing up at listening sessions; we need to recruit from that group as well.
Bob; listening sessions could include a recruiting component.
6. New item: The DITA TC and Lightweight DITA
Frame of Reference for LW Dita Review
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201612/msg00109.html (Jim Tivy, 22 December 2016)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201612/msg00112.html (Eberlein, 23 December 2016)
Update about small-group call on 14 December 2016
Minutes: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-lightweight-dita/201612/msg00020.html
First thoughts on LWDita
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201612/msg00112.html (Jim Tivy, 22 December 2016)
Jim; Kris, your response was a great start. we're discussing how to use LwD going forward. I was trying to interpret the audience for the LwD committee note (CN). Will it be a spec, or a PR thing for people outside the TC?
Kris; [reviewed her response to Jim's questions.] For timing, we're reliant on SC's efforts. Think about LwD; how does it align with 2.0? E.g., what do we want to do about LwD's multimedia domain elements? We need to have implementors assess ease of implementation of LwD, since a major rationale for LwD development was to ease adoption by users and tool developers.
Jim; how is LwD in line with architectural principles of DITA? It seems to be, though it wasn't clear from the first descriptions. But I'm not really sure...
Kris; all of us need to consider those questions and understand the principles behind LwD, We need to have good answers to all of those questions. We need to give the LwD CN careful consideration and analysis.
Kris; can someone give a quick summary of the Dec 14th LwD SC call?
Carlos; CN is not going to be a spec; it will be more equivalent to a DITA stage 1 proposal. It will deal with basic and advanced mappings from DITA to HTML5 and Markdown, We're open to developing other mappings later.
Robert; my goal was to emphasize that the CN is not a spec, and to clarify what the spec needs to be and should not be. We're still living with the consequences of not doing that with DITA 1.0. We want to keep LwD from having the same problems as DITA has had because of issues in the original spec. A CN is a way to start out by getting ideas out there, and get feedack on ideas before an official spec.
Kris; Another thing that came up in the call; both Robert and I suggested that template-based specialization be pulled from the first formal release of LwD, so the release could go out the door sooner. I think we weren't understood by everyone on the call, or maybe SC still thinks template-based specialization is still critical to LwD.
Robert; on my part, template-based specialization is the part of LwD where I have the most concern. It seems to me a clearly optional part of LwD; useful, but not part of a standard; it's a tool, so it's an awkward fit for me.
Carlos; at the SC meeting yesterday, we talked about it. It's not necessary, it's an internal tool for us, so it's not necessary to present template-based specialization as a part of the LwD spec.
Robert; I'm not talking about just the tool, but the idea itself. template-based specialization is something that allows a tool to create something for you, but what's created is the standard result of creating a DITA specialization.
Mark; all the more reason to do the CN, so we can get feedback on things from you.
Robert; IMO, including template-based specialization in LwD is similar to adding to DITA spec a completely optional method for creating specializations.
Don; what I'm hearing is that the LwD elements/@s may be architectural, but the tools are not. It's a tease between making the possible use of it more appealing, which would be missing if we go out without a discussion of the reason we're putting it in.
Robert; I have a lot of comments but I haven't seen enough details to to know if I'm right.
Kris; I urge SC folks to write up in the CN the reasons why you want to go forward with the template-based specialization approach. We originally chartered SC to make specialization easier.
Robert; but putting it in a prescriptive way doesn't work.
[to be continued next week]
11:59 AM ET close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]