can subject scheme maps be used to constrain profiling attribute groups?

[Chris Papademetrious <Christopher.Papademetrious@synopsys.com>]

Hello DITA TC folks!

 

We make heavy use of profiling attribute groups (2.4.3.1 Conditional processing values and groups). For example,

 

====

product="synthesis(A B C D) simulation(W X Y Z)"

====

 

We would like to use subject scheme maps to constrain profiling attribute groups to a subset of values. The way I imagine this working is to enumerate the individual "grouped" values, such as

 

====

  synthesis(A)

  synthesis(B)

  simulation(W)

  simulation(X)

====

 

like this:

 

====

<subjectScheme>

 

    <subjectdef keys="synthesis_keys">

        <subjectdef keys="synthesis(A)"/>

        <subjectdef keys="synthesis(B)"/>

    </subjectdef>

 

    <subjectdef keys="simulation_keys">

        <subjectdef keys="simulation(A)"/>

        <subjectdef keys="simulation(B)"/>

    </subjectdef>

 

    <enumerationdef>

        <attributedef name="product"/>

        <subjectdef keyref="synthesis_keys"/>

        <subjectdef keyref="simulation_keys"/>

    </enumerationdef>

 

</subjectScheme>

====

 

Is this how such a specification should be structured in theory? (I think so, because @product="synthesis(A) synthesis(B)" is equivalent to @product="synthesis(A B)".)

 

Our DITA authoring tool almost-but-not-quite supports this syntax, and we are jointly interested to know if it is theoretically correct.

 

I am aware that subject schemes offer similar hierarchy-of-values functionality as profiling attribute groups. However, our flow is heavily tooled around attribute groups, and we are not looking to move away from them.

 

Thanks in advance for your insights!

 

- Chris

 

-----
Chris Papademetrious

Tech Writer, Implementation Group

(610) 628-9718 home office

(570) 460-6078 cell