[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: Updated action on new troubleshooting topic
Bob,
Yes, good to hear from you--been too long. Some comments on the specialization design thus far:
The only thing we are missing out on is <tsEnvironment>, which your translation table suggests throwing in under <cause>. Fair enough. tsEnvironment is rarely used anyway, and the semantic argument that it really is a subcategory of causation makes sense. More important is the separation of diagnosis and resolution, which would both be folded in under <remedy>. But here's the mod entry for <troublebody>:
<!-- LONG NAME: Troubleshooting Body -->
<!ENTITY % troublebody.content
"(%condition;?,
%cause;?,
%remedy;?,
%troubleSolution;* )"
>
This says that <condition>, <cause>, and <remedy> are all optional, with only one allowed. That would mean that if we migrated from IBM, we could have either diagnosis or resolution, not both. That would be a serious problem for us. Of course, there is also the wider model allowed with <troubleSolution>, which allows <cause> and <remedy> in any number and any order.
<!-- LONG NAME: Troubleshooting Body division -->
<!ENTITY % troubleSolution.content
"(%cause;|
%remedy;)*"
>
I must confess that <troubleSolution> seems very strange to me. We seem to have one model with fixed contents, but then include an alternate model with open contents. Wouldn't it be simpler to make <condition> required, or at least first in the sequence, but then allow any number of <cause> and <remedy> elements in any order? That would eliminate the dual model.
Element content
<condition> and <cause> are just sections, with no special content. No problems there.
<remedy> contains the full task model, which we don't handle because of our inheritance. Also, it contains a lot of options, in any number and order (including <title> in any order or number, which I would not have expected). So yes, we could accommodate our response role paragraphs with a title and any basic content. But there's no containment structure in <remedy>, which seems to me really necessary if it is to include different actions by different folks. <ResponsibleParty> is, I know, a concession to our model. But I don't really see how it is to be used, and it's not shown in the migration table. It can be thrown in anywhere inside <remedy>, so does it just put in a pseudo-title with no containment model?
--Dan Dionne
User Technology Solutions
Department: HHX
Silicon Valley Lab
Lotus Notes Address: Daniel Dionne/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS
Internet Address: ddionne@us.ibm.com
Phone: 707-497-6554
Mobile: 408-250-6267
Bob Thomas ---07/30/2013 08:34:31 AM---Hi Dan, It's been a year since we corresponded. I hope that you are doing well.
From: Bob Thomas <bob.thomas@tagsmiths.com>
To: Daniel Dionne/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS,
Date: 07/30/2013 08:34 AM
Subject: Updated action on new troubleshooting topic
(See attached file: troubleshootingTopic_Feature13097_Phase2_Composite_29jul13.dita.pdf)
Hi Dan,
It's been a year since we corresponded. I hope that you are doing well.
I wanted to make sure that you had the latest iteration of the stage 2 document for the troubleshooting topic. Please me send any feedback.
Best Regards,
--
Bob Thomas
+1 720 201 8260
Skype: bob.thomas.colorado
Instant messaging: Gmail chat (bob.thomas@tagsmiths.com) or Skype
Time zone: Mountain (GMT-7)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]