RE: [dita-sidsc] IEEE P1685 purpose and scope

["Larsen, Seraphim L" <seraphim.l.larsen@intel.com>]

Regardless of how it's phrased on that web page, I don't think IP-XACT
is a "metadata standard" in the sense that we use the term "metadata"
when working with XML.   The IP-XACT user guide says 

    The IP-XACT v1.2 specifications release is intended to
comprehensively address
    Register Transfer Level (RTL) design, including packaging
configuration and SoC
    integration.

I think when they mean "metadata", they mean metadata about the design,
not metadata in the way we mean in XML.  The IP-XACT user guide
illustrates each block of IP as having an attached block of IP-XACT
"metadata", but in the description about how it really works, that
IP-XACT metadata isn't just additional data external to the IP, but
rather contains all the same information as the original IP, just in the
IP-XACT format.  

So, perhaps "metadata" is just a case of poor usage of terminology?  


In any case, here are some additional thoughts. 

IP-XACT is focused on RTL design information for SOCs.  RTL mainly
describes functional characteristics.  That's only a subset of the kinds
of information types that we need to document in semiconductor
documentation.  So, I'd agree that IP-XACT can only be *one* of the
standards that guides development of DITA specializations for
semiconductors.

You're right, it's not a technical documentation standard -- it's an IP
standard.  But since there is such an overlap between the IP on one
hand, and the things that go into the documentation on the other hand,
why not make the IP standards and the documentation standards as
interoperable as possible?

Registers (as always) are a good example of this.  IP-XACT seems to have
a pretty comprehensive set of element tags to describe register
functionality, including most (or all) of what you might want to put
into a document describing those registers (probably as register tables
or diagrams).  So, if we can create a specialization of some kind, that
matches very closely to the IP-XACT standard, won't that make it easier
to interchange data between the two standards?

Maybe (as Seth has suggested in another forum) it might be possible to
pull in the entire IP-XACT schemas, in the same way that DITA 1.1 allows
you to use the <foreign> element to pull in SVG and MathML?  Or maybe we
can pull in subsets?  I don't really know how that works or what it
would entail, but maybe we could look into it some more.

For our immediate Phase 1 work, maybe we should look more closely to see
whether our register examples could actually be described by the IP-XACT
structures.  If yes, why not try to duplicate them?  If no, what are the
exceptions?


Anyway, good discussion, thanks for raising the topic!


Seraphim Larsen
Intel Corporation * ECG TechComm
Chandler, AZ * (480) 552-6504
My opinions only; I don't speak for Intel. 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: bob.beims@freescale.com [mailto:bob.beims@freescale.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 10:41 AM
To: dita-sidsc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [dita-sidsc] IEEE P1685 purpose and scope

DITA SIDSC participants;

As a follow up to today's teleconference, I was reviewing some IP-XACT
information and ran across this web page:

http://www.eda-stds.org/spirit-p1685/

I'm wondering if the use of the term "documents" in the phrase "... for
meta-data that documents the characteristics ..." might not be causing
confusion.

From the perspective of an end-user of semiconductor devices, the
meta-data captured in an IP-XACT file is *far* from what they would
consider "documentation". IP-XACT files hold a basic *description*, yes,
but nothing close to what an end-user needs in the way of procedural and
functional *documentation* in order to use the device. At least that's
my perspective.

This leads me to the conclusion that within the SIDSC we should
definitely use the IP-XACT schema as *one of* the sources to guide our
development of DITA elements. But we should be very careful to
understand that IP-XACT is *not* a technical documentation standard, but
is rather a *meda-data* standard.

A subtle difference, but an important one, in my opinion.

Thoughts?
Bob