I've already asked. There should be one. Evidently you can sign up for the tables via the conf mobile app
Sent from my iPhone
Scott, is there a way that Lightweight DITA could have a Monday
lunch table? That way the subcommittee could meet over lunch.
Best,
Kris
Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
www.eberleinconsulting.com
+1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype)
On 4/18/2015 11:19 PM, Hudson, Scott
wrote:
I’m afraid it might get confusing to release
industry-specific specializations but then not including
them in the package.
I’m still a little unclear as to the primary goal for the
Lightweight DITA effort. Some have explained it as a valid
subset of DITA, others have explained that it is a mapping
of other vocabularies/languages to a subset of DITA
elements. Which is it?
I was under the impression that we were trying to create
a minimal subset that could provide an easy-to-use semantic
tag set for use in a web-based authoring tool.
I’m worried about trying to push something out there just
to “see what sticks”, when it could confuse a lot of people
who are watching for news from this activity.
I think we are on the right track as far as identifying
the particular roles in a domain, but we need more detail
about what document types those domains really need, and
more specifics about what elements are must-haves.
I think we need to worry less about mapping
implementations in other languages if we are still trying to
identify the proper subset of elements?
Thanks,
—Scott
We had a small meeting
last time, and talked about how to streamline our process
to get something out sooner.
What do people think about
focusing our efforts on getting the core package out ASAP,
with industry-specific specializations being used to
validate the architecture but not necessarily including
them in the package?
For example, we could aim
to publish a specification for V1.0 that:
- defines lightweight DITA
topics, maps, and specialization
- defines
mappings/implementations for XML, HTML5, markdown, JSON
- defines a lightweight
specialization document type that allows quick generation
of new map and topic specializations
- and links to separate
pages/papers for each industry/discipline area, which can
continue being developed after the initial spec is
published
Each domain position paper
(not a formally approved spec) would cover:
- value proposition of lw
dita for that domain
- listing of example roles
and scenarios
- list of example content
types
- at least one example
specialization of one of the domain-specific content types
(unless none are needed)
What do folks think? I'm
reluctant to push too far ahead with the core spec without
some validation from the domain analysis that we're
including the right things. But maybe we're asking for too
exhaustive an analysis. Maybe we just need enough analysis
to ensure that we've got a useful direction, and then we
can release and begin iterating.
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Enterprise Content Technology Strategist
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/michael-priestley
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
|