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: RE: [dita] DITA goes Nuclear?

Eliot, I agree with the comments from both of your e-mails on this

Is there a good place for people and organizations to informally share
new specializations?  Part of the DITA area on xml.org?  That might be a
way to encourage sharing of DITA specializations that are not formally
standardized. It might be a good way to share early versions of new
specializations before they become standardized as well.

If the specializations don't need to be formally standardized, would the
DITA Adoption TC be a better forum for encouraging this sort of thing
than the DITA TC with its focus on standards development?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eliot Kimber [mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 12:05 PM
> To: dita
> Subject: Re: [dita] DITA goes Nuclear?
> On 11/4/08 5:01 PM, "Eliot Kimber" <ekimber@reallysi.com> wrote:
> > On 11/4/08 3:10 PM, "Robert D Anderson" <robander@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> >> So - is there anybody on the TC interested in working on a
> specialization
> >> for the nuclear industry? If so, we can set up a subcommittee to
> work
> >> based on what has already been done. If so, please send a note
> >> describing your interest level (observer vs active participant). If
> you'd
> >> rather not send directly to the list at this point, you can send to
> and
> >> I'll collect responses; if you do that, please also copy Don Day,
> I'll
> >> be offline some of the next week and want to be sure I don't miss
> >> notes.
> >
> > While I'm sure such a specialization is quite valuable and it's
> to
> > see this type of activity happening, I worry that we are starting to
> a
> > precedent by which every community of interest that might find DITA
> useful
> > wants to be a subcommittee.
> >
> > I don't think that's either necessary or productive in the long run.
> DITA is
> > expressly designed to enable unilateral extension that does not need
> be
> > coordinated with the base standard in order to be both reliably
> > interchangeable and potentially useful as a standard in its own
> >
> > There's absolutely no reason that something like a nuclear industry
> > specialization couldn't be developed as a completely separate effort
> within
> > whatever standards community serves the nuclear power industry.
> Michael Priestly pointed out privately that there might be communities
> interest that do not have an existing standards-making body that could
> host
> a DITA specialization standard, in which case the DITA TC would be a
> natural
> home.  I agree completely.
> My main intent is that it's clear to the DITA community at large that
> standardization within the DITA TC is not a *requirement* for
> DITA specialization, nor is standardization within OASIS a
> For example, if the Air Transport Association wanted to define an
> aircraft-industry-specific set of specializations, it would make sense
> the ATA to host that activity--no need for it to be done under the TC
> because it happens to be a DITA-based XML application.
> Cheers,
> Eliot
> ----
> Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc.
> email:  ekimber@reallysi.com <mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com>
> office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368
> 2570 Boulevard of the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403
> www.reallysi.com <http://www.reallysi.com>  | http://blog.reallysi.com
> <http://blog.reallysi.com> | www.rsuitecms.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

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