I'm a bit confused, and admittedly a bit frustrated, by the analysis in your github repository.
Like Kris mentioned, we are supposed to meet to go over some of the expectations / technical details for alignment between the specifications. I'm not sure why, but that call keeps getting put off. A lot of the statements in your readme seem to flow from an incorrect assumption about what sort of reuse we expected -- issues that could easily have been cleared up in a call.
On the full DITA 2.0 specification side, we've already put a lot of work into this effort, in anticipation of eventual alignment. I've spent more time than I should have trying to convince people that this effort is both necessary and worthwhile for the full DITA specification. It's really frustrating to have all of that work dismissed so easily as putting a "substantial burden on editors of the Lightweight DITA specification", especially when so many of the burdens flow from a misunderstanding of what sort of alignment is necessary.
|Robert D. Anderson|
DITA-OT lead and Co-editor DITA 1.3 specification
Marketing Services Center
Kristen James Eberlein ---04/29/2019 07:56:45 AM---Hi, Alan. Just to check -- How this is related to the open TC action item for the four of us (me, yo
From: Kristen James Eberlein <email@example.com>
Date: 04/29/2019 07:56 AM
Subject: Re: [dita-lightweight-dita] for discussion - three LwDITA topics w/DITA 2.0 reuse
Sent by: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Just to check -- How this is related to the open TC action item for the four of us (me, you, Carlos, and Robert Anderson) to meet, collaboratively edit three topics, and discuss best approaches for LwDITA and DITA spec alignment?
Is this prep work on your and Carlos' part? If so, I think it does a good job of elucidating the following:
I think key work moving forward is the following:
- Assessment of work effort for LwDITA spec editors
- Difficulties in pursuing an approach of classic reuse between the LwDITA and DITA 2.0 specs
- Emergent requirements for LwDITA SC and LwDITA spec editors
- LwDITA spec editors want to use LwDITA topics for the LwDITA spec. (Do the LwDITA spec editors also want topics that store any elements intended for reuse between the two specifications to be LwDITA?)
- LwDITA spec editors do not want to refer to elements (for example, the "<shortdesc> element") but to components (for example, the "short description component").
- Statement of the requirements for alignment between LwDITA and DITA 2.0 spec. (If we focus on reuse, we lose the primary business requirement: that there must be alignment between the two specifications.)
- Exploration of different approaches for making that alignment happen.
- Assessment of the work effort for all the stakeholders: LwDITA spec editors, DITA 2.0 spec editors, and reviewers of the two specifications.
Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
+1 919 622-1501; kriseberlein (skype)
On 4/28/2019 4:59 PM, Alan Houser wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
Carlos and I have completed the exercise of drafting three lightweight DITA component reference topics (shortdesc, data, xref) with the goal of reusing DITA 2.0 content as much as possible. Our topics and analysis are here -- https://github.com/ahouser/LwDITA_DITA2.0_POC .
We can discuss tomorrow during the LwDITA SC call, should Carlos deem this worthy of a spot on the agenda. :-)