OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: processing semantics and the DITA language reference


A clarification for the conversation about what processing information
must be specified in the DITA language reference.

Some features (conref, specialization) described in the language
reference do have impact on the processing. These effects are relative,
in the sense that IF we know how to present an element, then we know
what the result would be after the feature is used (to refer to the
element or to specialize the element). So we don't have absolute
statements about the processing, but we do have relative statements.
These occur when the semantics of an expression are defined in terms of
the semantics of other expressions. This relative definition of the
semantics of a construct can be recognized as creating a relationship
among the constructs. Those are the relationships that Eliot was
referring to.

Bruce Esrig

-----Original Message-----
From: Larsen, Seraphim L [mailto:seraphim.l.larsen@intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:24 PM
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] DITA TC Minutes -- 10 Aug 2004


Oops, I forgot the roll call.  Here it is --

    Paul Antonov
    France Baril
    Don Day
    Stanley Doherty
    Bruce Esrig
    Yas Etessam
    Rob Frankland
    JoAnn T. Hackos
    Wendy Hambleton
    Nancy Harrison
    Erik Hennum
    Shawn Jordan
    Eliot Kimber
    Deborah Lapeyre
    Seraphim Larsen
    Indi Liepa
    Tyde Richards
    David Schell
    Eric Sirois
    Sharon Veach
    Mike Wethington


-Seraphim

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Larsen, Seraphim L [mailto:seraphim.l.larsen@intel.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:18 AM
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [dita] DITA TC Minutes -- 10 Aug 2004

DITA TECHNICAL COMMITTEE -- MEETING MINUTES -- 10 AUG 2004

*** Please see Action Items and Decision Summary at the end *** 


** Agenda ** 
------------ 
    1. Roll call

    2. Review/approve minutes from 03 August (pending)

    3. Progress on remaining issues currently in discussion.
        - Normative version--DTDs or Schemas?
        - Namespace for DITA?
        - Which version of CALS table model?
        - Conref and XInclude? 

    4. Review/revise intro section for the initial specifications.
        - Content:
            - Latest version:
                -
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/8636/dita
spec-intro-08102004.chm

        - Schedule:
            - 17 Aug 2004
                - First major milestone -- complete first draft of
                  first section and send out for review.
                - Begin review of 1st section.
            - 07 Sep 2004
                - Complete review/revision of 1st section; begin
                  review of 2nd section.
            - 28 Sep 2004
                - Complete review/revision of 2nd section; begin
                  review of 3rd section.  
            - 19 Oct 2004
                - Complete review/revision of 3rd section; beginning
                  of final review
            - 02 Nov 2004
                - Complete final review
            - 16 Nov 2004
                - Release 1.0 spec to OASIS

    5. AOB? 


** Minutes ** 
------------- 
    1. Roll call
        - We do have quorum.

    2. Review/approve minutes from 03 August (pending)
        - Minutes approved.

    3. Progress on remaining issues currently in discussion.
        - Normative version -- DTDs or Schemas?
            - Discussion:
                - Eliot Kimber -- The DTD/Schema is not enough to
                  provide a complete definition.  The language
                  reference should be the "normative" definition.
                - Nancy Harrison -- In the DocBook TC, the
                  DTD/Schema is not enough -- the documentation is
                  a very important part of the normative definition.
                  The online version of the documentation is kept on
                  sourceforge along with the code.
                - Erik Hennum -- The DTD would still be normative
                  for the content model, but the language reference
                  provides the explanation for the same elements.
                - Debbie Lapeyre -- Supports Elliot in acknowledging
                  that whatever we can say in the DTD/Schema is only
                  a small part of what we are doing.  The important
                  part is in the explanation.
                - Nancy -- Is the DTD/Schema plus the Language
                  Reference adequate, or do we need even more than
                  that?
                - Eliot -- The Language Reference does seem to be
                  complete.
                - ...
                - Erik Hennum -- Proposes that we rely on the DTD
                  for content models and specialization package
                  organization, and rely on the language reference
                  for what it all means.  A model in the future
                  would rely on a syntax-independent definition of
                  the semantics, and from this the DTD/schema would
                  be derived.
                - Eliot -- Need to add a high-level description of
                  the packages -- what is a topic? what is
                  a concept/task/reference?  This needs to be
                  included in the language reference.
                - Bruce Esrig -- Do we need to say anything about
                  processing?
                - Don -- It's covered in the language reference,
                  although it's not perfect in that respect.
                - Eliot -- We don't want to talk about how the
                  processing is implemented.
                - Don -- We need to make sure the Language Reference
                  is complete in regard to processing.
                - Bruce -- Is the processing semantics implicit in
                  the Language Reference, or do we need to say
                  something explicitly?
                - Eliot -- What processing semantics specifically
                  are we talking about?  In how much detail should
                  DITA specify this / how general should the
                  specification be?
                - Erik -- We might make these kinds of statements as
                  illustrations, we shouldn't make them as normative
                  restraints.  "This kind of thing will typically be
                  rendered as a link."
                - Nancy -- The processing application will determine
                  how this is rendered.  There are some elements
                  that are created for the purpose to do something
                  with them, but not all elements require
                  presentation.  You should say something about how
                  an item is typically rendered.
                - Eliot -- Yes, but it doesn't say "It must be
                  rendered this way."
                - Bruce -- These mechanisms must be completely
                  described.
                - Eliot -- If some elements have relationships with
                  other elements, we need to explicitly define those
                  relationships, but that's all, we don't need to go
                  beyond that.
                - Bruce -- 
                - Don -- This is all good input for the review
                  process, but we don't need to rewrite the given
                  proposal.
                - Eliot -- We'll provide at least one thorough
                  example of how things should work, but this
                  example won't be the normative definition.

            - PROPOSAL -- The normative definition of DITA consists
              of the element semantics and package organization as
              described in the Language Reference, and the element
              content models and attribute typing and specialization
              pattern as encoded in the DTD.

            - The proposal was approved -- no objections.


        - Namespace for DITA?
            - Moved to next week.
        

        - Which version of CALS table model?
            - A lot of discussion on the virtues of the HTML model,
              the CALS exchange model, and the CALS model.
            - Some issues considered -- 
                - Can you get required print quality using HTML
                  model, which allows you to specify line widths
                  only as pixels?   >>> No
                - Is there a way to specify cell shading in the CALS
                  model?   >>> Yes, you can use attributes to do
                  this.

            - PROPOSAL -- We recommend a CALS table model -- the
              HTML model is not required for this version of the
              specification.  We still need to decide which CALS
              model to use (full CALS model, or CALS Exchange
              model).

            - The proposal was approved -- no objections.

            - Need to resolve final question -- which CALS model to
              use.  That discussion is moved to next week.
           
        
        - Conref and XInclude? 
            - Moved to next week.


    4. Review/revise intro section for the initial specifications.
        - Content:
            - Latest version:
                -
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/8636/dita
spec-intro-08102004.chm

        - Schedule:
            - 17 Aug 2004
                - First major milestone -- complete first draft of
                  first section and send out for review.
                - Begin review of 1st section.
            - 07 Sep 2004
                - Complete review/revision of 1st section; begin
                  review of 2nd section.
            - 28 Sep 2004
                - Complete review/revision of 2nd section; begin
                  review of 3rd section.  
            - 19 Oct 2004
                - Complete review/revision of 3rd section; beginning
                  of final review
            - 02 Nov 2004
                - Complete final review
            - 16 Nov 2004
                - Release 1.0 spec to OASIS

        - Action Required:  Let's discuss this on the list!

    5. AOB?     
        - None


** Summary of Decisions ** 
-------------------------- 

    - Approved minutes of 03 August.

    - Decision -- The normative definition of DITA consists of the
      element semantics and package organization as described in the
      Language Reference, and the element content models and
      attribute typing and specialization pattern as encoded in the
      DTD.

    - Decision -- We recommend a CALS table model -- the HTML model
      is not required for this version of the specification.  We
      still need to decide which CALS model to use (full CALS model,
      or CALS Exchange model).


** Action Required ** 
--------------------- 
    017 Shawn Jordan -- Post to the TC list his ideas about general
        extensibility and the creation of new elements not
        necessarily descended from the Topic element. Still open
        (not an immediate deliverable -- for post-1.0). 

    021 JoAnn Hackos, Michael Priestley -- Summarize the discussion
        of substitution and post to the TC list. Still pending as of
        7/20/04. 

    022 Don, Michael -- Put together a "self-study" tutorial/demo,
        as per JoAnn's comments regarding the DITA sessions. Still
        pending as of 7/20/04. 

    024 Eliot -- Find out exactly how to entitle the subsections
        within the two specifications (as "sub specification", or as
        "Part 1, part 2, etc.", or in some other way). 
            - Eliot sent email to specification support person, but
              no response back yet. (6/29/04) 
            - Also Eliot should ask if OASIS can provide any
              examples of well-written specs (in regard to content,
              not format) 

    026 Michael -- See how Conref and XInclude contrast with SGML.
        Still pending as of 7/20/04. 

    027 Erik Hennum -- Wrap up his thoughts about Conref and
        XInclude and put them on the list. Still pending as of
        7/27/04. 

    036 Shawn Jordan -- Investigate where to point the DITA
        namespace -- where does the URL point? Maybe an OASIS page
        that describes what DITA does, etc. 

    037 Don -- Find someone to investigate the impact on those with
        legacy content of moving from the CALS model to the HTML
        model. 

    040 Don -- Cull the past minutes and discussion list to create
        an inventory of all the things we need to close on in order
        to create the 1.0 spec.  Create a list of these items and
        post it in the Documents area of the website.

    041 All -- Send comments on spec 1.0 to JoAnn this week.

    042 All -- Consider need for and practicality of 2-3 day
        face-to-face meeting in late October in order to resolve
        final technical issues in advance of final editorial work.

    043 Michael Priestley -- Add a straw-man audience statement to
        the introduction.

    044 All -- Review the .chm file sent out by Michael Priestley
        located at
 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/8636/dita
spec-intro-08102004.chm
        and post comments to the TC list.


** Issues to be Resolved ** 
--------------------------- 
    005 All -- What should the scope and length of the conceptual
        introduction be?

    006 All -- Should DITA specialization mechanism be documented in
        a separate specification in order to make it easier to use
        in other XML applications that otherwise have no
        relationship to topic-based writing?

    007 All -- Decide which version of the CALS table model to use
        -- either the full CALS model, or the CALS Exchange model.

<END> 



___________________________________________________________
Seraphim Larsen                  ICG Technical Publications
Sr. Technical Writer                      Intel Corporation
(480) 552-6504                                 Chandler, AZ

The content of this message is my personal opinion only. 
Although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make 
here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor 
am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.
___________________________________________________________


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]