RE: [docstandards-interop-discuss] what's in a name?

["David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Michael,

 

New name is a big improvement - OASIS Interoperability for XML Document Markup Standards TC

I'm also thinking what is going on is designing a metaformat.  I hate to suggest another permutation here but

 

OASIS Metaformat for XML Document Content TC

The problem space is exactly the same as the ebXML CCTS Core Components work in CEFACT and OASIS, where a common lexicon in neutral syntax is required to establish a vocabulary of parts that have common meaning and purpose regardless of the XML stanciation in transactions - globally.  In CCTS its B2B fixed structure transactions that are machine/human facing - in this case its open structured document content that is human/machine facing.

 

>> " Increasingly, organizations need to collaborate and share content with other organizations. As a result, XML
>>  interoperability between these standards is critical"

 

I don't think its interoperability here that is the first challenge - that's merely a by-product.  What you are after is a metaformat that provides a high level neutral abstraction of the concepts within an XML document.  Once you have that - everyone can then map from their localized XML format to the higher level.

 

The bottom line is context. 

 

You use content in your own context inside your favourite tool.  When you (or someone else) moves that content out into a different context - you need a set of rules to allow that move to supply the global context drivers that were not needed in your original content creation.  Or sound default surrogate ones if they are missing / unknown.

 

You do not use the metaformat for local document instances - but you do need it to understand content outside of that local context.

 

The other example is the OASIS codelists metaformat work for genericode listings.  Very few people would use that format in production codelist handling - but as a means to publish and share codelist values its a useful metaformat that then processors can use to consume list content in that format - to produce localized products for actual use.

 

Thanks, DW

"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [docstandards-interop-discuss] what's in a name?
From: Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, May 27, 2007 12:01 pm
To: <docstandards-interop-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org>


Here's my latest attempt at distilling our purpose into a simple noun phrase.

As background:

the original name:
OASIS Document Standards Interoperability TC.

issues uncovered over the last few weeks:
 - what do we mean by document, standards, interoperability?
- document: an XML document, presumably with some kind of marked-up content, like an ODF document, a DITA topic, a DocBook chapter...
- standards: standards for XML document markup, such as ODF, DITA, DocBook... (to pick three from OASIS that are represented on the proposing list)
- interoperability:
        the ability to reuse content marked up with one standard in contexts marked up with another standard, for example reusing a DITA topic in a DocBook chapter;
        the ability to do so in a predictable way across multiple standards, using standardized mechanisms that can be supported by tools such as editors and publishing engines/servers;
        and if this means changing some of the standards to be more consistent with each other, then let's get the requirements on the table!

general problem:
- each document standard represents different communities with different terminology
- so it's not surprising that we have trouble agreeing on what to call the Technical Committee.

proposed solution:
- make the name somewhat more specific, but still fairly generic; use the expanded description to define the scope more closely.
- otherwise the TC name will be five paragraphs long :-)


So, without more ado, the new proposed name:

OASIS Interoperability for XML Document Markup Standards TC

Rationale for changes:
- expand syntax (putting interop first) so it's clear that the interoperability applies to the standards, rather than being a general statement of global interop (we want the standards themselves to support interoperability)
- expand "document standards" to "xml document markup standards" to clarify that we mean standards for marking up xml documents - not standards for transmitting xml documents, or standards for marking up non-xml documents....

Proposed additional charter information:

- make clear who we are starting with (DITA, DocBook, ODF) but that we are open to participation from members of any open standards activity for XML document markup, and for users of those standards who have cross-standard reuse needs
- make clear what we mean by interoperability, per the discussion of degrees of interoperability here:
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/docstandards-interop-discuss/200704/msg00010.html
- provide an illustrative business scenario, per:
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/docstandards-interop-discuss/200704/msg00005.html
- provide a list of proposed deliverables, etc.

Here's the original statement of scope for background - I suspect it will become quite a bit more verbose with the above concerns taken into account :-)

One of the benefits that XML touted from early in its inception was that of platform independence. This independence
greatly helped in its widespread adoption, yet brought with it the unintended consequence of a proliferation of
standardized XML grammars. Document standards such as DITA (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/dita), DocBook
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/docbook), and ODF (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office) all address a
similar need to mark up documentation in a platform-independent format.

Increasingly, organizations need to collaborate and share content with other organizations. As a result, XML
interoperability between these standards is critical. These standards, however, have not been designed with
cross-standard interoperability in mind. The Doc Standards Interoperability TC is intended to address the development
and documentation of scenarios for cross-standard content sharing; a specification for an interoperability framework,
including mappings from participating standard formats to the framework; and requirements on participating standards to
improve interoperability.

Michael Priestley
IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25