[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC minutes, 12 May 2009 (DITA_TC_meeting_12_May_2009.txt) uploaded
------------------------------------------------------- OASIS DITA Technical Committee Minutes Tuesday, 12 May 2009 ------------------------------------------------------- Minutes recorded by Kristen James Eberlein. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Robert Anderson, Stan Doherty, Rob Frankland, Paul Grosso, Elliot Kimber, Chris Kravogel, Bruce Nevin, Dana Spradley, Su-Laine Yeo, JoAnn Hackos, Gershon Joseph, Michael Priestley, Jim Earley, Don Day, Steffen Fredericksen, Seth Park, Jae Sheddy. Quorum is present; 100% of voting members. 2. APPROVE MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING * http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200905/msg00008.html (5 May 2009) Motion made to approve minutes; seconded by JoAnn Hackos; motion carried by acclamation. 3. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS JoAnn Hackos reported that the Translation subcommittee is reviewing Kara Warburton's best practice document on glossary. 4. ITEM: # ITEM: HREFS TO TOPICREFS (was "Cross-references to Topicheads and Implicit Title-only Topics") * http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200905/msg00011.html (Eliot, final position) Elliot clarified that we now are explicitly stating that the behavior is processor-specific; there are no technical changes, just documentation clarification. Ready to be endorsed by the TC and submitted to the editors for the specifications. Don Day moved that the e-mail be forwarded to the editors, seconded by Bruce Nevin; approved by acclamation. Action (12 May 2009): --------------------- Gershon Joseph and Robert Anderson, as editors of the specifications, to ensure that appropriate changes to the documentation occur. 5. ITEM: MAPREF ATTRIBUTE RESOLUTION * How does @scope behave when cascading from map to map? There is an open action for Robert Anderson: Action (21 April): ------------------ Robert to write up summary based on 21 April discussions; vote when it is posted. Robert reported that he has not done this; he will send summary to this list; it will be ready for vote next week. 6. ITEM: EDITORIAL STYLE Action: Gershon Joseph will follow through on this by setting up the sign-up page. Kris Eberlein created a Wiki page at http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DITA_1.2_specifications%3A_Authoring_and_editorial_guidelines; item is closed. 7. ITEM: THE CASE FOR AGGREGATED EDITING * http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200903/msg00014.html * http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200904/msg00099.html (TSelf comment) Deferred until Steve Manning is present. Members should read Tony Selfs comment. 8. ITEM for 1.3: Element-to-Element Relationship Tables (ExternalLinks) * http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200905/msg00000.html (Kimber) Marked as closed contingent on Gershon Joseph logging this item on the DITA 1.3 issues page. 9. New ITEM: PROCESSING-ROLE ATTRIBUTE (Anderson) * http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200904/msg00080.html Robert commented that there had been clear discussion and general consensus on the list that the default value for the keydef should be resource-only. Motion made by Robert Anderson that on the <keydef> element, the processing-role attribute should default to resource-only. Seconded by Bruce Nevin, approved by acclamation. Action (12 May 2009): --------------------- Robert Anderson to figure out if there are other outstanding issues concerning this item. 10. New ITEM: CRITDATES REQUIRES CREATED (Kimber) * http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200904/msg00094.html and following The <critdates> element currently requires that you have a creation date; Elliot Kimber has a client that wants to use critdates but they don't always have a creation date -- and they don't want to always have a creation date. To Elliot, this seemed that DITA was imposing an inappropriate business rule. Gershon Joseph commented that always having a creation date made sense when DITA was fundamentally designed for technical document; now that techcomm has been moved out from the base and generalized for a broader audience, new use cases (such as this) are arising. Don Day commented that this could be viewed not as a technical change but as a relaxation of the content model. He asked whether this change is attainable for the DITA 1.2 schedule? Paul Grosso commented that Arbortext code just froze. Motion made by Don Day on Elliot Kimber's behalf that the TC revise the content model for <critdates> with appropriate revisions to DTDs and documentation; seconded by JoAnn Hackos; approved by acclamation. 9. ITEM: WHAT SHOULD BE IN THE ARCHITECTURAL SPECIFICATION? (Eberlein) * http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200905/msg00001.html 10. New ITEM: Specialization spec packaging (Kravogel via Gershon) * http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200904/msg00075.html Good discussion last week; item closed contingent on completion of open action items from last week. Actions carried over from previous week (5 May 2009): ----------------------------------------------------- 1) Gershon to update the doctype shells page with feed back from Michael, also to 1) add heading styles to make the collection headings clearer, and 2) clarify expectations for the various spec documents. Gershon and Michael will include Robert Anderson and Jeff Ogden in this work, since they were involved in the last changes to the page. 2) Michael Priestley will draft a clear, crisp definition of the charter of the architectural spec; he also will draft a one-paragraph description of each document, including the architectural spec. 10. ITEM: REVIEW MASTER TOPIC LIST--Gershon Gershon directed people's attention to the Wiki page at http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DITA_1.2_specifications%3A_Authoring_and_editorial_guidelines; he encouraged members to contribute comments and questions to the work-in-progress. All authors, editors, and reviewers of topics should become familiar with this page. He noted that Kris had uploaded the Excel spreadsheet to SVN; be sure to lock this file in SVN before making any changes. There is a section titled "Audience and purpose for the architectural spec" that contains talking points that Gershon and Kris discussed last week; he is also aware that Micheal Priestley has an open action item to draft information about the charter for the architectural spec. Gershon then raised the question of what should be in the Language specification versus what is in the architectural spec; his personal opinion is that the lang spec should discuss elements and attributes that are in the DTDs and schemas; anything beyond that (processing expectations, etc.) should be in the architectural spec. Right now there is a lot of overlap; many topics in the lang spec go into more detail, and that detail should probably be in the architectural spec. He asked for discussion from the floor on this point. Elliot commented that this seemed like a reasonable break down. When he was doing the research on the href item, he came on many places in the Language Spec that said "See the architectural spec." While this is clumsy, it makes sense to for a standard to centralize all of the complex processing semantics in one place. JoAnn Hackos commented that she agrees with Gershon and Elliot's comments. She went on that a problem with the architectural spec, like any dictionary, is that the content is disbursed. You cannot easily get a good overview of how something is supposed to work. The Language spec also suffers from the fact that it -- by its very nature -- does not explain how things work together as a unit. She'd like to see the architectural spec written from a user-oriented, scenario-driven perspective. If you read the Yahoo! group, you see that users are beginning with a DITA implementation when they don't understand how maps work. The architectural spec should start with simple scenarios -- what are the basics of how maps function, for example -- and then go into the more esoteric scenarios for how people might implement maps. Need to do this for each section of the specification. Don Day asked whether we had time to do something like that; general consensus that we did not. Robert Anderson raised the point that the audience for the architectural spec was not the end user but implementers and tool vendors. JoAnn Hackos raised the point that many implementers are single people in companies, often end users; not every implementer is a consultant. Bruce Nevin commented that he agrees that JoAnn is identifying an important gap for documentation, but he is not sure that it needs to be filled by the architectural spec. Maybe there should be another document to serve this need. Robert Anderson asked whether a scenario-driven document could be written by the Adoption Committee; the architectural spec should be oriented towards people implementing the tools that work with DITA, stating how each piece should work. Micheal Priestley commented that there should still be room in the arch spec for usage information, to make sure that the implementers understand what they are trying to implement. Don't need step-by-step instructions but should have topics that describe the intended overall flow, how we anticipate people using DITA, so that the implementers don't end up meeting the letter of the law but missing the spirit. Stan Doherty commented that the 1.0 and 1.1 architectural specs have been used by end users. If we are changing the definition of the audience, we need to explain that audience change and let people know where material useful for user and soft-technical implementers has been relocated. Don Day commented that the overview for the architectural spec is one place where we should explain the audience change. JoAnn commented that she has been moving information about minimalism and where DITA came from; Michael commented that we had agreed that material should be handled in the Tech Comm package. Robert Anderson commented that it has always bothered him to put "See the architectural spec" in the language spec; he is glad that delivering the language spec and the arch spec together will enable linking between the two documents. Gershon commented that the specialization topics will be task-based, since that is how Michael had reworked the TOC. He's not sure whether we need to do the same sort of hand holding on maps. Michael commented that someone implementing a specialization is *very much* the appropriate audience for the architectural spec; someone authoring a map is not. Yet implementers reading the architectural spec need to understand how people will be authoring maps. He also thinks that usage guides organized around communities (tech docs, business documents) seems like a good fit for the Adoption Committee. Don Day commented that we might have the opportunity to move information to a different timeline by moving it to the Adoption TC; this would enable us to refine our model for the architectural spec and language spec. Gershon reminded people that we also will need to use the page for style issues. Stan Doherty offered to send that guidelines that the Help Subcommittee to Gershon and Kris. Open question of whether the arch spec is authored using DITA 1.1 or DITA 1.2; Robert commented that the lang spec uses keyref heavily. Consensus to use DITA 1.2 for the arch spec. Kris asked that JoAnn check updated files into SVN, so that she can look at those topics in conjunction with the updated map topics and start work on editorial points. JoAnn commented that she was just back from vacation, but would do so shortly. She has changed files and topic types, so she will need to delete the old files from SVN and then add the new files. Actions (12 May 2009): ---------------------- 1. Kris to add an "Editorial guidelines" section to the Wiki. 2. JoAnn to update her files in SVN. 3. Kris and Gershon to update "Audience and purpose of the architectural spec" based on today's discussion. 4. Stan Doherty to send the editorial guidelines for the Help Subcommittee to Kris Eberlein and Gershon Joseph. Meeting adjourned. -- Kristen Eberlein The document named DITA TC minutes, 12 May 2009 (DITA_TC_meeting_12_May_2009.txt) has been submitted by Kristen Eberlein to the OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC document repository. Document Description: View Document Details: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=32565 Download Document: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/32565/DITA_TC_meeting_12_May_2009.txt PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for you, your email application may be breaking the link into two pieces. You may be able to copy and paste the entire link address into the address field of your web browser. -OASIS Open Administration
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]