RE: [dita-s1000d-discuss] Kicking off the New Year

["Chet Ensign" <chet.ensign@comcast.net>]

I could certainly envision *hypothetical* examples, such us (a) hydraulics manufacturer uses S1000D for its maintenance information, etc.. and sells to a number of companies including (b) Boeing, who maintains content using DITA and must integrate the hydraulics manufacturer's information into its documentation, etc. and sells to a number of organizations including (c) the U.S. Airforce, who maintains their documentation in a CALS-derived IETM format. (Not sure about a good round-trip example, though.)

 

What I do not know personally is whether these sorts of things actually happen.

 

One aside: something I *have* seen over and over is problems that occur not in space A or space B but at the gap between them. Both communities deserve kudo's taking the time to explicitly look to see if there's a real problem here!

 

("Mind the gap" as they say on the NYC subway <grin>)

-----Original Message-----
From: tes-tig-2 [mailto:john.lawless334@tig.mod.uk]
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 10:22 AM
To: Chet Ensign; Tsao, Scott; Scott Hudson
Cc: dita-s1000d-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita-s1000d-discuss] Kicking off the New Year

I agree with Chet and Scott. The primary driver for future work should be a valid business case. We (in the S1000D community) know the space the spec occupies and I am sure the DITA community know the same for DITA. Are there instances where the information contained in both are complementary or need to co-exist? Are there real life examples where interchange is required? Are there valid scenarios that could be substantiated where interchange could be required? You'll see that I have some questions and not any answers yet, I agree that this is what the discussion forum should tackle first.

Happy New Year to you all (a bit belated, but we get more holidays for it here in Scotland)

 

 

John Lawless
Head Of Policy and Advice
TES-TIG-2
Room1.2.14
Kentigern House
65 Brown Street
Glasgow, G2 8EX

Tel: 0141 224 2035
Mil: 94561 ext 2035
Mob 07796336182
john.lawless334@tig.mod.uk
This E-mail was sent from and E-mail address under the control of the MOD.  Privileged/in-confidence information may be contained in this message.  If you have received this E-mail in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and kindly notify the sender by reply E-mail.  The addressee  (or individual responsible for delivery of the message to such person) may not forward, disclose or copy this E-mail to any third party without prior consent of MOD.  Furthermore, MOD does not accept liability for any changes made to this E-mail after it was sent.  Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet E-mail for messages of this kind.

-----Original Message-----
From: Chet Ensign [mailto:chet.ensign@comcast.net]
Sent: 05 January 2007 13:20
To: Tsao, Scott; Scott Hudson
Cc: dita-s1000d-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita-s1000d-discuss] Kicking off the New Year

Scott, do you think such real world use cases exist? I agree with your proposal and think it is one of the first things that a S1000D/DITA committee would do. However, if there's question as to whether the business needs exist or not, then that is something that should be discussed in this discussion mailing list because it is central to the question of whether a TC or subcommittee should be formed. No real world business need = no need to form a committee.

 

/chet

-----Original Message-----
From: Tsao, Scott [mailto:scott.tsao@boeing.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 11:03 AM
To: Scott Hudson; Chet Ensign
Cc: dita-s1000d-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita-s1000d-discuss] Kicking off the New Year

To respond to Scott's solicitation below, I was taking the 3rd approach by suggesting that we develop some realistic interoperability scenarios first (see http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-s1000d-discuss/200701/msg00002.html).  I think that anything we do here should be driven by the real use cases that would bring business value to the industry, not by the wants of a group of IT professionals.  For example, we need to ask ourselves this question: "What is the real use cases (and the associated business value) for making provisions for the round-trip (content interchange) between DITA and S1000D?"

 

Regards,

Scott Tsao
Enterprise Architecture and Integration
The Boeing Company

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Hudson [mailto:scott.hudson@flatironssolutions.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 3:27 PM
To: Chet Ensign
Cc: dita-s1000d-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [dita-s1000d-discuss] Kicking off the New Year

Thanks, Chet!

I also want to make provisions for the round-trip. I'm not sure if the DITA SC could extend it's scope to include producing a transform to take DITA content to an S1000D-compatible form? (then again, if it is specified in the charter, perhaps it could)

Thoughts?

--Scott

Chet Ensign wrote:
> Happy New Year Scott. I lean towards a subcommittee since this is, in
> effect, a subset of broader DITA activities. The TC already has 3 in
> place to address other specialized concerns. This topic also looks
> like a similar sort of initiative.
>
> Best,
>
> /chet
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Hudson [mailto:scott.hudson@flatironssolutions.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 1:00 PM
> To: dita-s1000d-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [dita-s1000d-discuss] Kicking off the New Year
>
>
> Folks,
>
> thank you for your introductions and active discussions this past
> December regarding DITA and S1000D interoperability.
>
> I'd like to kick off the New Year with an informal poll.
>
> Given the strong potential for alignment between S1000D and DITA,
> would you support:
>    1) the formation of a Technical Committee at OASIS to move forward
> with the detailed mapping work and technical artifacts, or
>    2) would you rather support the formation of a SubCommittee as part
> of the existing OASIS DITA TC to handle this work, or
>    3) are there other suggestions as to how to move forward on this effort?
>
> The charter of this discussion list is limited to what could be done
> in a TC/SC and proposed charter development, though I would also like
> to use this discussion list as a way of collecting relevant available
> information on these standards as well.
>
> Best regards and Happy New Year,
>
> --Scott
>
>