[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita-machine-industry] AW: Architectual Specs
Check out Page 6. Robin From: Christian Kravogel
[mailto:christian.kravogel@seicodyne.ch] Hello Gershon We just discussed on our meeting the proposed idea "Then
each specialization would have a separate spec, which would consist of the lang
spec and, where relevant, the arch spec." We have some further questions to it. The DITA Machine Industry Subcommittee has developed for DITA 1.2
the hazard statements domain and the task requirements domain. During the
packaging discussions in the TC, it was decided to move the hazard statement
domain into the base folder and the task requirements domain into the
technical content folder. Plus a machineryTask.dtd with a
machineryTaskbodyConstraint.mod file into the machineryIndustry folder. Regarding a separate spec for each specialization, what does that
means to our work. Do we have to write a machineindustry related spec containing
architectual and langref information for the hazardstatements, taskrequirements
and machinerytask or do we have to create 3 different specs? or is there something else expected from us? In our point of view we just need a good guidance for users who
would like to use these domains, regardless if they are from the machinery
industry or not. Looking forward hearing from you Best regards Chris SeicoDyne GmbH Eichenstrasse
16 CH-6015
Reussbühl Switzerland Tel:
+41 41 534 66 97 Mob:
+41 78 790 66 97 Skype: seicodyne Member of the DITA Technical Committee Chairman of the DITA Machine Industry Subcommittee Von: Gershon
Joseph (gerjosep) [mailto:gerjosep@cisco.com] Hi Chris, Thanks for following up on this. I don't recall getting it
before. The current thinking (which we inherited from the work Jeff Ogden
did about a year ago) is to have the arch spec limited to the base feature set.
Then each specialization would have a separate spec, which would consist of the
lang spec and, where relevant, the arch spec. In discussions with the DITA
Adoption TC, this approach was deemed acceptable, with the idea being that the
arch spec would precede the lang reference. Any best practices and other
support info needed to work with (and understand) the specialization would also
be included in this specialization-specific spec. Would your SC be OK to do it this way for the machinery
specialization? Best regards, Gershon From: Christian Kravogel
[mailto:christian.kravogel@seicodyne.ch] Gershon I have noticed that this mail I sent on 3rd of March did not make
it through to you. Hope it works this time. Best regards Chris SeicoDyne GmbH Eichenstrasse
16 CH-6015
Reussbühl Switzerland Tel:
+41 41 534 66 97 Mob:
+41 78 790 66 97 Skype: seicodyne Member of the DITA Technical Committee Chairman of the DITA Machine Industry Subcommittee Von: Christian
Kravogel [mailto:christian.kravogel@seicodyne.ch] Gershon we
have today discussed the Architectual Specs ToC in the Machine Industry
Subcommitte and would like to make the following proposal. To
indicate specific use of DITA in different industries we recommend an industry
related chapter in the architectual specs. Containing the following industries
or areas (maybe industry is a to specific limitation) -
Software -
Machine Industry The
Machine Industry Subsection may contain:
a map for the machineindustry, containing 3 topic as a start (more topics e.g. diagnostics, troubleshooting, maintenance etc. will follow in DITA 1.3) * An introduction topic * hazardstatement topic * task requirements topic Best regards Chris SeicoDyne GmbH Eichenstrasse
16 CH-6015
Reussbühl Switzerland Tel:
+41 41 534 66 97 Mob:
+41 78 790 66 97 Skype: seicodyne Member of the DITA Technical Committee Chairman of the DITA Machine Industry Subcommittee |
UnitOfMeasure from s1000d_Issue_4_0.pdf
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]