RE: [dita] topicref to map - draft of recommended behavior

[Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>]

The class of an element is confusing
with the class attribute, but that's not a bad thing - in fact the class
of an element is determined by its class attribute, even more than its
element type. I was suggesting we use element class vs element class semantics...
but this whole thing is getting trickier by the minute. I'm going to sleep
on it.

re generalization - if we want to use
the word, we get to qualify the heck out of it. Because we don't mean with
preservation of class attributes, and we don't mean to any valid ancestor,
and we don't mean with selective generalization of any mismatched domains.
We don't mean generalization in the sense that it is used when conreffing
between document types, where one is the specialization of the other. We
just mean "don't know what to do with this, so going to make it topicrefs
- you've been warned. This may or may not be valid, but at least it's expected".

Michael Priestley, Senior Technical
Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect 
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25

"Ogden, Jeff" <jogden@ptc.com>

06/24/2009 02:32 PM

To	Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
cc	"dita" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject	RE: [dita] topicref to map - draft of recommended behavior

I think context is what was
used in 12055, but I’d be happy with using something else if we can figure
out a good term. Class would seem to conflict with the existing class attribute
in much the same way as type conflicts with @type.  But having said
this I’m not feeling very creative and can’t come up with other terms
that I like.  Perhaps we can reword to avoid the issue.  Or perhaps
we need to use a short phrase rather than a single word term?  Some
possibilities:
       
    Element type
       
    Type of element
       
    Element class
 
I don’t agree with the comment
about not knowing enough about the referencing element’s content model
to be able to generalize. We may know enough and we aren’t requiring generalization,
just allowing the possibility.
 
So here is a reworded version:
 
A generic topicref to a generic map
may be used to create an aggregated result, incorporating the contents
of the referenced map into the referencing map. When the topicref is to
a whole map, rather than an individual branch, then an aggregating process
may achieve a DITA -valid aggregated result by pulling the target map's
top-level topicrefs into the location of the referencing topicrefs, with
any reltables moved to the end of the referencing map to avoid having reltable
elements at invalid locations.
(see dita 1.1: http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.1/OS/langspec/common/theformatattribute.html)

When a topicref points to a map and either or both elements are specialized
or contain specializations, the type of the referencing element (part,
chapter, topicref, …)
typically determines
the DITA type context of the elements being pulled
in to be included  should
be preserved in the aggregated result.
For example, a <chapter> reference to a map implies that the target's
top-level topicrefs will become
act as
<chapter> elements. However, it may be desirable to
and processing should allow the
preserve preservation
of the semantics
context
element type implied
by of
the referenced map's elements in any DITA-valid aggregated result.
For example, a <topicref> to a bookmap could be resolved into a set
of topicrefs with outputclass="chapter".  Typically
an aggregating process would not include literal elements from unknown
specializations, since it faces the risk of including specialized elements
that are not valid in the referencing context.
Typically processing
should not unconditionally include literal elements from unknown specializations
in an aggregated result when the elements are not valid in the referencing
context. Instead the referencing element or a generalized version of the
referenced element may be included to create a DITA-valid aggregated result,
with the referencing and referenced context information preserved by other
means. Processors are free to use other means to preserve the referencing
and referenced contexts
element type information when they are creating an intermediate result
that is not necessarily a DITA-valid aggregate.

When you create processing for a new specialization of topicref, be aware
of the following considerations:
- should it be able to reference other maps?
- should it be able to referency any type of map?
- is it valid for the target's top-level topicrefs to be pulled into the
reference's location, becoming multiple instances of the referencing element
type? (as described in the previous paragraph)
- is it appropriate for the children of the target element to be pulled
in as generic topicrefs, with any additional semantics preserved in some
other manner (for example, outputclass)? (as described in the previous
paragraph) 
If the answer to all of these is yes, then the base-level aggregation policies
should be appropriate. Otherwise you will need to create overriding processing
to ensure the aggregated result is appropriate for your needs.

   -Jeff

---

From: Michael Priestley [mailto:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 9:16 PM
To: Ogden, Jeff
Cc: dita
Subject: RE: [dita] topicref to map - draft of recommended behavior
 

Some wording quibbles: 
- context vs type vs semantic - I can understand not using type, but context
for me is too broad - context could just mean the surroundings of the element,
its attributes etc. The main need is to distinguish when we mean element
type/class vs other way of preserving semantics - how about using the word
class when we mean element type, and semantics for the general case?
- generalization: don't want to use the word generalization here because
that has really specific meaning which we're not implying (we don't know
enough about the referencing element's content model to usefully generalize
to any particular ancestor)

Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect 
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25

"Ogden, Jeff" <jogden@ptc.com>

06/23/2009 02:14 PM

To	Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "dita" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	RE: [dita] topicref to map - draft of recommended behavior

 

This seems good.  I suggest a few minor changes below.
 
I’m concerned that the phrase “DITA type” may be confused with @type, when they are different things.
 
I’ve softened some of the language to make it clear that processors have more latitude when they are not creating DITA-valid aggregates.
 
   -Jeff
 
A generic topicref to a generic map may be used to create an aggregated result, incorporating the contents of the referenced map into the referencing map. When the topicref is to a whole map, rather than an individual branch, then an aggregating process may achieve a DITA -valid aggregated result by pulling the target map's top-level topicrefs into the location of the referencing topicrefs, with any reltables moved to the end of the referencing map to avoid having reltable elements at invalid locations.
(see dita 1.1: http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.1/OS/langspec/common/theformatattribute.html)

When a topicref points to a map and either or both elements are specialized or contain specializations, the type of the referencing element typically determines the DITA type context of the elements being pulled in to be included in the aggregated result. For example, a <chapter> reference to a map implies that the target's top-level topicrefs will become act as <chapter> elements. However, it may be desirable to and processing should allow the preserve preservation of the semantics context implied by of the referenced map's elements in any DITA-valid aggregated result. For example, a <topicref> to a bookmap could be resolved into a set of topicrefs with outputclass="chapter".  Typically an aggregating process would not include literal elements from unknown specializations, since it faces the risk of including specialized elements that are not valid in the referencing context. Typically processing should not unconditionally include literal elements from unknown specializations in an aggregated result when the elements are not valid in the referencing context. Instead the referencing element or a generalized version of the referenced element may be included to create a DITA-valid aggregated result, with the referencing and referenced context information preserved by other means. Processors are free to use other means to preserve the referencing and referenced contexts when they are creating an intermediate result that is not necessarily a DITA-valid aggregate.

When you create processing for a new specialization of topicref, be aware of the following considerations:
- should it be able to reference other maps?
- should it be able to referency any type of map?
- is it valid for the target's top-level topicrefs to be pulled into the reference's location, becoming multiple instances of the referencing element type? (as described in the previous paragraph)
- is it appropriate for the children of the target element to be pulled in as generic topicrefs, with any additional semantics preserved in some other manner (for example, outputclass)? (as described in the previous paragraph)
If the answer to all of these is yes, then the base-level aggregation policies should be appropriate. Otherwise you will need to create overriding processing to ensure the aggregated result is appropriate for your needs.

 
 
 

 

---

From: Michael Priestley [mailto:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 1:20 PM
To: dita
Subject: [dita] topicref to map - draft of recommended behavior
  

Here's what I think we agreed on in today's call - making it three paras,
one to provide descrip of existing default behavior, one to provide guidance
for specialized processing, and finally one to provide explicit guidance
to specializers. I expect this will require more tinkering, and hope I
haven't missed any points - if I have I welcome corrections:

--------------------------------
A generic topicref to a generic map may be used to create an aggregated
result, incorporating the contents of the referenced map into the referencing
map. When the topicref is to a whole map, rather than an individual branch,
then an aggregating process may achieve a DITA -valid aggregated result
by pulling the target map's top-level topicrefs into the location of the
referencing topicrefs, with any reltables moved to the end of the referencing
map to avoid having reltable elements at invalid locations.
(see dita 1.1: http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.1/OS/langspec/common/theformatattribute.html

When a topicref points to a map and either or both elements are specialized
or contain specializations, the type of the referencing element typically
determines the DITA type of the elements being pulled in. For example,
a <chapter> reference to a map implies that the target's top-level
topicrefs will become <chapter> elements. However, it may be desirable
to preserve the semantics of the referenced map's elements in any DITA-valid
aggregated result. For example, a <topicref> to a bookmap could be
resolved into a set of topicrefs with outputclass="chapter".
 Typically an aggregating process would not include literal elements
from unknown specializations, since it faces the risk of including specialized
elements that are not valid in the referencing context. 

When you create processing for a new specialization of topicref, be aware
of the following considerations:
- should it be able to reference other maps?
- should it be able to referency any type of map?
- is it valid for the target's top-level topicrefs to be pulled into the
reference's location, becoming multiple instances of the referencing element
type? (as described in the previous paragraph)
- is it appropriate for the children of the target element to be pulled
in as generic topicrefs, with any additional semantics preserved in some
other manner (for example, outputclass)? (as described in the previous
paragraph) 
If the answer to all of these is yes, then the base-level aggregation policies
should be appropriate. Otherwise you will need to create overriding processing
to ensure the aggregated result is appropriate for your needs.





Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect 
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25