Thanks, Scott.
Best,
Kris
Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
www.eberleinconsulting.com
+1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype)
On 4/19/2015 8:42 AM, Hudson, Scott
wrote:
I’ve asked Lisa if we can set aside a table for LW DITA.
We should be able to accommodate it, or use the table that
Carlos volunteered!
—Scott
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
|