RE: [dita] DITA goes Nuclear?

["Tsao, Scott" <scott.tsao@boeing.com>]

As a member of the DITA Adoption TC, I think the Adoption TC would be quite interested in tracking DITA specializations, formally or informally, in the industry at large.  It could also host the information at dita.xml.org.

Regards,

Scott Tsao 曹壽國
Information Architect - Associate Technical Fellow
The Boeing Company

-----Original Message-----
From: Ogden, Jeff [mailto:jogden@ptc.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:18 AM
To: Eliot Kimber; dita
Subject: RE: [dita] DITA goes Nuclear?

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

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?

   -Jeff

> -----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
start
> work
> >> based on what has already been done. If so, please send a note
briefly
> >> 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
me
> and
> >> I'll collect responses; if you do that, please also copy Don Day,
as
> I'll
> >> be offline some of the next week and want to be sure I don't miss
any
> >> notes.
> >
> > While I'm sure such a specialization is quite valuable and it's
exciting
> to
> > see this type of activity happening, I worry that we are starting to
set
> 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
to
> be
> > coordinated with the base standard in order to be both reliably
> > interchangeable and potentially useful as a standard in its own
right.
> >
> > 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
of
> 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
standardized
> DITA specialization, nor is standardization within OASIS a
requirement.
>
> For example, if the Air Transport Association wanted to define an
> aircraft-industry-specific set of specializations, it would make sense
for
> the ATA to host that activity--no need for it to be done under the TC
just
> 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
<http://www.rsuitecms.com>
>
>