dita message

Subject: [no subject]
*  Sharing common vocabulary modules.
*  Adding optional vocabulary modules for special kinds of information.=

*  Reusing pieces of subsets of content in different deliverables
(information sets in publication sets).

DITA seems to differ in topic granularity, formal type relationships,
external maintenance of relationships (map), and so on.

If the question is how one would represent the same information in DITA=
,
one might consider modelling

*  The low-level information units of an S1000D information set with
specialized topics

*  The higher-level structures of an S1000D information set using eithe=
r:
a) consistent patterns for organizing topicrefs in a DITA map, or b)
specialized topics that nest other topics.

*  The S1000D publication set as a separate DITA map that either: a)
conrefs organizing topicrefs from the information sets, or b) reference=
s
the container topics from the information sets.

While such a DITA specialization should be able to define an informatio=
n
model that's very consistent with S1000D, it wouldn't achieve an identi=
cal
vocabulary.  That is, you wouldn't be able simply to attach ingenuous c=
lass
attributes to the existing S1000D elements.  You'd almost certainly end=
 up
with some discrepancies in attributes and containment.

Thus, if the S1000D vocabulary is a strict requirement, you'd be lookin=
g at
some kind of transform from the DITA source to express the information
model that way.  If the S1000D should include presentation elements, th=
at
might be a good thing to apply the presentation based on the semantics.=
 One
possibility would be to engage the S1000D community on whether this con=
tent
would lend itself to a topic-oriented, specialization-based strategy.

That's my superficial view.


More informed perspectives?


Erik Hennum
ehennum@us.ibm.com


"Tsao, Scott" <scott.tsao@boeing.com> wrote on 08/17/2004 11:10:35 AM:

> My colleagues at Boeing are wondering how DITA would compare with the=

> AECMA/AIA Specification 1000D (see http://www.s1000d.org/).  As I
> understand, S1000D is being mandated by the UK government, and will
> likely be mandated by the US government in the near future.
>
> Regards,
>
> Scott Tsao
> The Boeing Company
> P.O. Box 3707, MC 67-EF
> Seattle, WA 98124-2207
> 425-234-3761
> mailto:scott.tsao@boeing.com
>=

--0__=07BBE460DFE38BB28f9e8a93df938690918c07BBE460DFE38BB2
Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<html><body>
<p>Hi, Scott:<br>
<br>