dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 23 January 2018 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com>
- To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 01:18:37 -0800 (PST)
Submitter's message
ActionItems:
1. Kris will make the OASIS admin requests to move Errata02 forward to public review
2. Bob will build a .chm version of DITA 1.3 Errata02 for public review package.
3. All TC members should review the proposal mechanism for 2.0
=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 23 January 2018
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
https://wiki.OASIS-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas
Attendance:
Robert Anderson, Carsten Brennecke, Bill Burns, Don Day, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Carlos Evia, Nancy Harrison, Alan Hauser, Scott Hudson, Eliot Kimber, Tom Magliery, Chris Nitchie, Joe Pairman, Keith Schengili-Roberts, Eric Sirois, Joe Storbeck, Dawn Stevens, Amber Swope, Bob Thomas
Business
========
1. Roll call
Regrets: Richard Hamilton
2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
16 January 2007:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/email/archives/201801/msg00038.html (Harrison, Thu, 18 Jan 2018 21:38:58 -0800 (PST))
moved by Kris, seconded by Scott, approved by TC
3. Announcements:
New TC members: None
Welcome Deb Bissantz (Vasont Systems) back to the TC as a voting member
4. Action items
6 September 2016
Kris: Revise subject scheme example topic pulled from errata 01
19 September 2017:
Kris and Robert: Draft response to Radu's blog post and e-mail to dita-comment
- Robert; I'm working on it, should be done today
05 December 2017:
Robert: Investigate issues that OASIS found re HTML generated by DITA-OT
09 January 2017:
Nancy & Tom: Propose way to regularly aggregate minutes
[see agenda items #5 & #6]
Eliot: Stage one proposal about redesign of image to include metadata
- Eliot; not done yet
Chris: E-mail about adding new vocabulary element for inclusion of external XML; confer with Robert and Eliot
- Chris; I emailed Eliot and Robert, but haven't heard anything yet, will work on it
- Eliot; replying right now
16 January 2017
Eliot: Stage one proposal about new topic type in which title is not important/not rendered
- Eliot; I sent out email on this earlier this morning
Carlos & Alan: Prepared a change-marked PDF of the LwDITA committee note (COMPLETED)
Carlos & Alan: Prepare LwDITA package for TC to vote on 23 January
[done]
Kris & Tom: Make any necessary decisions about change marking in errata (COMPLETED)
Keith: Summarize discussion about RDFa to help us return to the discussion (COMPLETED)
Kris and Tom: Make any necessary decisions about errata change marking (COMPLETED)
5. Aggregated DITA TC minutes
Is the format of the aggregated minutes useful?
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/62350/2017-all.txt (Aggregated minutes for 2017)
How frequently should the aggregated minutes be generated?
Note that we are adding hyperlinks to the minutes on the previous agenda page at https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas
- Robert; I find them useful, but may be one of the few who do...
- Tom; I looked at them last week when reviewing comments for errata, so I used them for the first time; unless someone thinks they need them more than now, I think one year is enough.
- Kris; major use for them is compiling proposals, and finding dates when it was discussed; Nancy, can you do them quarterly, and aggregate them as you go, so we only have one file at any time during the year?
- Nancy; quarterly is the most often that isn't a nuisance.
- Kris; so going forward, minutes will be aggregated quarterly, and kept together. I also propose that we link to the relevant minutes from our link to the agenda for which they were recorded.
- Nancy; is a particular person doing this?
- Kris; going backward, anyone who looks up a set of minutes should make the link.
- Kris moved that the chair and secys will make sure to make the links going forward. TC agreed.
6. DITA TC minutes: Corrections
Should we amend minutes when we find an error?
Type in minutes from 14 November 2017
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201801/msg00049.html (Magliery, 22 Jan 2018)
Toggling minutes in Kavi from "draft" to "approved" status
- Kris; when someone goes back make a correction to a set of already approved minutes, should we make the correction and then toggle them to approved?
- Tom; this came up in an exchange where Keith summarized data, then Eliot mailed to the list that there was a typo, and it came from Keith transcribing from minutes, which had a [significant] typo.
- Alan; our minutes are more detailed than Robert's rules call for; my personal feeling is no harm done in having them that way. I could agree on a convention with the correction and make it clear that it's a post-approval, technical correction.
- Scott; could we approve minutes errata at the next meeting?
- Kris; let's do this, and please read the minutes before meetings; let's modify the original approved minutes and upload to Kavi. When we fix something in the minutes, then put a comment in revised minutes and add it as a revision to Kavi. And every time we upload minutes, set to draft state. but after the TC approves a set of minutes, we should change status to approved. Any concerns?
- Nancy; no
- Kris; moving forward for 2018, let's do that. to make it easier to work on 2.0 proposals.
7. "LwDITA: An Introduction" committee note: Items from public review
Link to PDF with changes introduced by the public review marked
Carlos made the following motion (seconded by Bill Burns):
Motion: "I move to approve "Lightweight DITA: An Introduction Version 1.0" and all associated artifacts packaged together at https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/document.php?document_id=62370 as a Committee Note and designate the XHTML version of the note as authoritative."
Voting:
For: 20: Robert Anderson, Carsten Brennecke, Bill Burns, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Carlos Evia, Nancy Harrison, Alan Hauser, Scott Hudson, Eliot Kimber, Tom Magliery, Chris Nitchie, Joe Pairman, Keith Schengili-Roberts, Eric Sirois, Joe Storbeck, Dawn Stevens, Amber Swope, Bob Thomas
Against: 0
8. DITA 1.3 Errata 02
Wiki page for DITA 1.3 Errata 02
All DITAweb review comments resolved
Update about revision marking:
One instance of a change NOT being marked in the spec was a consequence of a bad value for the rev attribute.
Deletions are NOT marked in the errata version of the spec.
Tom caught one instance where a change listed in the errata document was NOT present in the spec.
Package in Kavi:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/document.php?document_id=62375
- Kris; thanks to Bob and Robert for building things;
Kris moved both of the following motions simultaneously; both were seconded by Eliot:
1. Motion: "I move that the TC approve DITA Version 1.3 Errata 02 and all associated artifacts packaged together in https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/document.php?document_id=62375 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."
2. Motion: "I move that the TC approve submitting DITA Version 1.3 Errata 02 contained in https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/document.php?document_id=62375 for a 15 day public review."
Schedule
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DITA-1.3-errata-02-schedule
Voting:
For: 20: Robert Anderson, Carsten Brennecke, Bill Burns, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Carlos Evia, Nancy Harrison, Alan Hauser, Scott Hudson, Eliot Kimber, Tom Magliery, Chris Nitchie, Joe Pairman, Keith Schengili-Roberts, Eric Sirois, Joe Storbeck, Dawn Stevens, Amber Swope, Bob Thomas
Against: 0
***ActionItem: Kris will make the OASIS admin requests to move the errata forward to public review
- Kris; btw, we have no built .chm version for errata. If OASIS will let us not do so, we won't, Otherwise, Bob, can you build a .chm file - it may be necessary, since we list it in the cover page, so otherwise we'd have to rebuild everything.
***ActionItem: Bob will build a .chm version of DITA 1.3 Errata02 for public review package.
9. DITA 2.0 stage one proposals: Discussion
RDFa support
Summary by Keith Schengili-Roberts: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201801/msg00047.html (22 January 2018)
(Slight) correction by Eliot Kimber: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201801/msg00048.html (22 January 2018)
Comment by Joe Pairman: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201801/msg00057.html (22 January 2018)
- Keith gave an oral overview of his written summary, including Eliot's and Joe's corrections, and suggestions [see linked emails for details].
- Keith; this has also come up from listening sessions; some people are using metadata inappropriately, but there are also some cases where they wanted to do more with metadata and couldn't do so. And although it's not in the summary, wrt use cases, we should look at iiRDS formats, taken on by parsons AG, as well as Schema.org; they use RDFa and JSON and microformats.
- Kris; comments from Eliot or Joe?
- Joe; I think it's a good summary; I hope we can discuss mapping today
- Kris; we're looking at a few current suggestions;
1. rather than extend SubjectScheme, correct it; that's already in our 2.0 queue; many of us are uncomfortable with having keys function differently in SubjectScheme than in the rest of DITA. We'd like to focus on
a. adding a new @ to ditabase that could have a value of a URI, and
b. creating a new mapping mechanism to pair items in DITA with items in an external taxonomy system; the question is 'are there enough use case definitions?' If so, do we want to limit values for this @ to just URIs? Or might we want to use other controlled values that aren't URIs? Is it DITA's job to make sure it doesn't become messy, or do we ust let it? And what do we call it - metadata or something else?
- Eliot; the value is just a magic string, but for most uses, it will be a URI; so the challenge is to distinguish when its intended to be a resolvable refeeence, and when not.
- Joe; the best practice is that they're de-referencable, but they're not always, in URL, URN or possibly other format.
- Kris; Joe, please take a look at the wiki page on our proposal mechanism; we don't need to have all our use cases till later in the process.
[***ActionItem: everyone should review the proposal mechanism for 2.0]
- Joe; for the name of this thing, could we do it as part of stage 2?
- Kris; that's correct, now is a good time for people to start thinking about it.
- Robert; to move forward, we have to decide if the idea is worthwhile.
- Scott; if we were looking for @, would vocab be a good one? would it add confusion or not?
- Joe; 'vocab" in RDFa means something else, so it might be confusing
---------------
- Joe; should I move forward to mapping idea?
- Kris; one other question; how tightly tied are new @ and mapping element?
[not that tightly tied]
- Kris; any more questions on new @? We're talking about a potential stage 1 proposal. We won't vote on these today, that's for a later meeting.
- Joe; wrt a semantic mapping mechanism; the use case is that people want to map DITA elements to external metadata schemas. e.g. Parsons, in making it work with iiRDS metadata schema, they tried to map existing prolog metadata elements to items in iiRDS, some didn't work as well, so they defined their own. They specified iiRDS 'product' for metadata. Many people are also interested in Schema.org, as a way to mark up content in a way that Google can read and analyze. e.g., it's possible to map steps to a equiv element in the Schema.org vocabulary. There are many ontologies out there; it's not DITA's job to specify how to map to these, but it's a gap in that there's no DITA mechanism for stating this relationship, so everyone does it differently. and that's a problem. I proposed, in my email of 28 Nov., a simple mechanism, maybe as part of SubjectScheme, for certain elements, the way they map to external schemas. The question is: should it only be elements, or @s as well? But it's a basic mapping idea. DITA tools will still work, I floated it by Parsons, and they liked it, but it needs much more discussion.
- Kris; comments, questions?
- Joe; I'm thinking that in a batch of content - SubjectScheme is linked from the root map - what do DITA elements relate to? If you have a delivery platform, how could you define a mechanism so Google could read it? e.g., we could have all task elements relate to an single 'x' element in schema.org.
- Scott; if we had something in aviation, how do I relate just the topics that relate to airspace, rather than all the tasks?
Joe; I think this is more related to taxonomy tagging, and a new @. For semantic mapping, you would have the entire step content marked up as a value of a 'how-to; step. It's not taxonomy; it's relating a block of content to metadata schema.
- Keith; would it be feasible to get an example of a code-mockup; that would definitely help me understand this
[to be continued]
11:59 am ET close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]