[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] DITA 1.2 packages [updated]
I'd agree with everything Jeff says here - just want to add a couple of comments. The next DTD package that I'll post will include the Machine Industry task. I've already put together a constraint for that document type which removes prereq and postreq. Based on my understanding of conversations today, I will also add the hazard domain to the topic, concept, reference, and task document types. I think that this means that we do not need a distinct "Machinery Concept" document type, because it would be an exact match for the other concept we already distribute. The same would be true for topic and reference. Robert D Anderson IBM Authoring Tools Development Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (507) 253-8787, T/L 553-8787 (Good Monday & Thursday) "Ogden, Jeff" <email@example.com> To 04/15/2008 02:04 <firstname.lastname@example.org> PM cc Subject RE: [dita] DITA 1.2 packages [updated] Some comments edited into the text below. -Jeff From: SeicoDyne DITA [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1:00 PM To: Ogden, Jeff; firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: AW: [dita] DITA 1.2 packages [updated] I have a few questions regarding the packaging, also based on the discussions we had today in the machine industry SC meeting. A ) isn't the naming "Technical Content Package" a bit misleading? Do the Machinery Industry Package and the Learning and Training Package not also contain mainly technical content? We’ll need some suggestions for a better name, if we want to consider a change here. B ) As the Learning and Training Package will be used by training departments in the machinery industry as well, I would propose to add the machinerytask Domain and the Hazard Statement Domain to this package. I guess we’ll want to find out what the Learning and Training sub-committee thinks. For myself I’m not sure this is a good idea. If we aren’t careful, we’ll end up with all of the domains in all of doctype shells. I think we need to try and make some things simpler/smaller rather than more complicated/larger. Groups can always create their own customized doctype shells to use whatever combination of domains they want. The question for the TC or its sub-committees is what we should include in the out-of-the-box doctype shells that we will include in each of the DITA 1.2 packages. In any case we wouldn’t add the domains to the package. While this isn’t completely settled, one possibility is the Hazard Statement domain will be part of the Core package and the Machine Industry domain would be part of the Machine Industry package. And then doctype shells from other packages could use these domains. We could use the Hazard Statement domain in the Technical Content topic doctype shells. That might eliminate the need to create Machine Industry specific doctype shells for topic, concept, and reference. We’d want to ask the Learning and Training Content Sub-committee if Hazard Statement should be included in any of their topic doctype shells, but it would certainly be possible. And to be clear, it is making the Machine Industry domain a prerequisite for Learning and Training (or any other package beyond the Machine Industry package) is what is making me uncomfortable. C ) As decided today in the machine industry subcommittee we require the software, UI and programming domain in the machine industry package as well. (for the description of user/service terminals, machine control units etc.) But at the same time I would like to ask, if it is possible to have two shells, one including those three domains and one without them? Including more doctype shells could certainly be done, but it makes the packages bigger and somewhat more difficult for the uninitiated to figure out. What is the use case for having both? Individual organizations are always free to create their own customized versions. D) Can we use "Machine Industry Package" instead of "Machine Industry Specialization Package" Sure. We should probably drop the word “Specialization” from all of the package names. That would give us: Core Package (Base Package?) Technical Content Package (or some better name that someone suggests?) Book Package Learning and Training Content Package Machine Industry Package Semantic Linking, Controlled Values, and Taxonomies Package Combined Documentation Package Combined Package E) I am not sure if I misunderstand the description in the "Machine Industry Package". I just like to motion that utility, highlighting, and indexing domain must be part of the machine industry package as well as all topic types: topic, concept, task, reference, glossary All of the core topic domains (utility, highlighting, indexing, hazard statement) plus software, programming, and UI plus the Machine industry domain where appropriate should be included in the Machine Industry package doctype shells. Less clear if separate versions of topic, concept, reference, and glossary are needed or if the versions from the Technical Content package (with the addition of the Hazard Statement domain) can be used. F) Regarding the possible need or needless of a Machine Industry Task, I have the following question. The content model of the DITA 1.2 taskbody is: <!ENTITY % taskbody.content "(((%prereq;) | (%context;) | (%section;))*, ((%steps; | %steps-unordered; | %process;))?, (%result;)?, (%example;)*, (%postreq;)*)" > The machinerytask Domain adds two new elements prelreqs (preliminary requirements) and closereqs (closing requirements) - names derived from S1000D. prelreqs has been specialized from section and closereqs from example. <!ENTITY % mitask-d-section "prelreqs" > <!ENTITY % mitask-d-example "closereqs" > The content model of prelreqs is derived from S1000D: <!ENTITY prelreqs.content "((%reqconds;)?, (%reqpers;)?, (%supequip;)?, (%supplies;)?, (%spares;)?, (%safety;)?)" > (required conditions, required persons, support equipment, supplies, spares, safety) The content model of closereqs is derived from S1000D: <!ENTITY closereqs.content "(%reqconds;)" > (required conditions) The specialization will add prelreqs to the section element and closereqs to the example element. But now raised the question, what to do with prereq and postreq ? In the discussion today in our subcommittee we had 3 votes to replace prereq and postreq by prelreqs and closereqs (to avoid confusion if both elements exist) => would require to remove prereq and postreq from the content model of task. 2 votes to add prelreqs and closereqs and to keep all elements from the taskbody (to offer a choice for the use of prereq or prelreqs) => content model of task.mod would remain unchanged How big would be the differences and what would be the implication between these two options for the implementation. Can this be addressed by using constraints with task? Best regards Chris SeicoDyne GmbH Eichenstrasse 16 CH-6015 Reussbühl Switzerland Tel: +41 41 534 66 97 Mob: +41 78 790 66 97 Skype: seicodyne www.seicodyne.com email@example.com Member of the DITA Technical Committee Chairman of the DITA Machine Industry Subcommittee Von: Ogden, Jeff [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Gesendet: Montag, 14. April 2008 17:19 An: email@example.com Betreff: [dita] DITA 1.2 packages [updated] Here is a new version of the DITA 1.2 packaging proposal updated based on comments and suggestions received on the first draft. No major changes to the original proposal from 7 April. A few additional questions for the TC at the end. Changes are highlighted in blue. We’d like to discuss this during an upcoming DITA TC call. And, as always, comments and suggestions by e-mail to the list or directly to me ( firstname.lastname@example.org), Robert (email@example.com), and Michael ( firstname.lastname@example.org) are welcome. The items below are numbered just to make it easier to refer to specific items in discussions and via e-mail. General comments: i. The proposal is to organize the DITA 1.2 specification into a set of six individual packages plus an additional combined package as outlined below. ii. All packages include both DTD and XSD doctype shells and modules. iii. All packages include catalog files (both XML and text). iv. All packages include documentation (DITA source, PDF, and chunked HTML output, and possibly HTML Help (chm) and unchunked HTML output). v. Packages will contain a mix of normative and informative (non-normative) materials. vi. Directories and files will be organized and named so that they can be combined and installed into the same directories without conflict. vii. Except for the combined package, individual packages won’t duplicate the content from other packages. viii. The Core Package can be used by itself. ix. Each of the individual non-core packages requires the Core package and may require other packages. x. The Core Package plus the Technical Content Package gives what is available in DITA 1.1 without bookmap and with the addition of the Hazard Statement domain, and the Basic Topic and Basic Map document type shells. xi. The written specifications, references, and guidelines are being divided into smaller independent documents to make them more manageable, to allow them to be maintained somewhat independently, to allow readers to avoid sections that they may not need or may not be interested in, and to make it easier to add more structural and domain specializations in the future. xii. The DITA TC and eventually OASIS will be asked to approve the specifications, DTDs, XSDs, modules, and related files in the combined package. 1) Core Package a) DITA 1.2 Core Architectural Specification (introduction, topic, map, and metadata markup, processing, specialization including constraints). b) DITA 1.2 Core Language Reference (map, topic, metadata, map group domain). c) DITA 1.2 Utility Domain Specializations Architecture and Language Reference (utilities, highlighting, xNAL, and hazard statement domains). d) DITA 1.2 Processing Guidelines and Examples (non-normative). e) Basic Topic document type shell (topic type, no domains). f) Topic type modules. g) Topic domain specialization modules for the indexing, utilities, highlighting, and hazard statement domains. h) Basic Map document type shell (only map type plus the map group domain). i) Map modules. j) Map Group domain specialization modules. k) Delayed Resolution domain specialization modules. l) xNAL domain specialization modules. m) Basic Ditabase document type shell (topic type, no domains). n) ditaval document type. 2) Technical Content Package a) DITA 1.2 Technical Content Specializations Architecture and Language Reference (concept, task, reference, glossary). b) DITA 1.2 Software Specializations Architecture and Language Reference (software, programming, and UI domains). c) Topic document type shell (topic plus core topic domains plus the software, programming, and UI domains). d) Concept document type shell (concept plus core topic domains plus the software, programming, and UI domains). e) Glossary document type shell (glossentry plus core topic domains plus the software, programming, and UI domains). f) Reference document type shell (reference plus core topic domains plus the software, programming, and UI domains). g) Task document type shell (constrained task plus core topic domains plus the software, programming, and UI domains). h) Concept, glossary, reference, and task specialization modules. i) Software, programming, and UI domain specialization modules. j) Map document type shell (map plus map group, and indexing domains). k) Technical Content Ditabase doctype shell (topic, concept, glossentry, reference, task plus the core topic domains plus the software, programming, and UI domains). 3) Book Specializations Package a) DITA 1.2 Book Specialization Architecture and Language Reference (bookmap). b) Bookmap document type shell (bookmap plus map group, indexing, and xNAL domains). c) Bookmap specialization modules. 4) Learning and Training Content Specializations Package a) DITA 1.2 Learning and Training Content Specializations Architecture and Language Reference. b) Doctype shells for all of the Learning and Training topic specializations except learningBase, includes the core topic, software, programming, UI, Learning topic , and Learning Metadata domains. c) Learning and Training topic, map, and metadata domains. d) Learning and Training map doctype shell (map plus the Learning Map, Learning Metadata, and Learning topic domains). e) Learning and Training bookmap doctype shell (bookmap plus the Learning Map and Learning Metadata domains). f) Learning and Training map domain specialization. g) Learning and Training Ditabase doctype shell (all of the Learning and Training topics, plus topic, concept, glossary, reference, task, plus the core topic, software, programming, UI, Learning topic, and Learning Metadata domains). 5) Machine Industry Specializations Package a) DITA 1.2 Machine Industry Specializations Architecture and Language Reference. b) Machine Industry Task doctype shell (task plus the core topic and Machine Industry domain specializations). c) Machine Industry domain specialization modules. d) Machine Industry Ditabase doctype shell (topic, concept, reference, Machine Industry Task, plus core topic and Machine Industry domain specializations). 6) Semantic Linking, Controlled Values, and Taxonomies a) DITA 1.2 Semantic Linking, Controlled Values, and Taxonomies Specializations Architecture and Language Reference. b) Subject Schema Map document type shell. c) Subject Schema Map modules. d) Classification Map document type shell. e) Classification domain specialization modules. 7) Combined Package a) All of the above in one combined package. Questions: I. Should the Learning and Training topics and ditabase doctype shells include the software, ui, and programming domains? John thinks they should, but will check with the subcommittee. II. Do we want a Learning and Training map doctype shell that is based on bookmap? John says yes. III. Is it nuts to include so many variations of Ditabase doctype shells? Do we want a ditabase in each package? Should we leave this up to the sub-committees? IV. Should we include the approved Best Practice documents as an informative part of the core package? Should we combine the existing best practice documents into a single document? V. Which map document type shells should include the Delayed Resolution domain? Basic map? Technical Content Map? Bookmap? Leaning Map? VI. We have a constrained task doctype shell as part of the Technical Content Package. Do we need to include an unconstrained task? If so, in which package? Or is the Machine Industry Task an unconstrained task that can serve this role? VII. Notice that the Delayed Resolution domain is included in the core package, that it is not included in any doctype shells. Is this OK? VIII. Notice that the xNAL domain is included in the core package, but it is only included in the Bookmap doctype shell. IX. There was a suggestion that we have an additional package that would contain the combined documentation and none of the DTD, XSD, and related files. This is not included in the above proposal, but could be if members of the TC think it would be useful. X. We will include the DITA source, PDF, and chunked HTML output. Do we want to include HTML Help (chm) and unchunked HTML output as well? XI. Are seven or eight packages too many (six individual, one combined, and possibly a combined documentation package)? XII. Questions about how to coordinate Robert’s proposed changes to the organization of the DITA Language Reference documents with the packaging proposal were raised during the 8 April DITA TC call. XIII. There is a question about the name for what is labeled the “core” package above. Is “core” OK or would “base”, “common”, or something else be better. XIV. There are questions about the right place to put the xNAL and Hazard Statement domains that we need to sort out. XV. Is Technical Content a good name for item #2 above? Would Technical Publications be better? Something else?
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]