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] some comemnts on the Draft DITA 1.2 architecture spec.



The existing definitions are here:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.1/OS/archspec/integrate.html
http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.1/OS/archspec/customize.html

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>

06/30/2009 02:22 PM

To
"JoAnn Hackos" <joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com>, "Dana Spradley" <dana.spradley@oracle.com>, "dita" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject
RE: [dita] some comemnts on the Draft DITA 1.2 architecture spec.





I don’t know if there is a less “drastic” and more appropriate term than “customization”, but I’m sure that “specialization” isn’t the right word to use when someone creates a new document type shell.  Specializations create new DITA types. Modifying a document type shell doesn’t create a new DITA type, but just assembles existing DITA types for use.  One of the goals of the constraints proposal as I remember it was to allow customization without requiring specialization.
 
I’ve always thought of “specialization” as being a subset of the larger class of customizations:
 
1)      Customization
1.1)  Specialization
1.1.1)       Structural Specialization
1.1.2)       Domain Specialization
1.2)  Customized Document type shells
1.3)  Customized Processing
1.3.1) Transformations
1.3.2) Stylesheet processing/formatting
 
Part of the problem here may be that we don’t have good names for 1.2 and 1.3.
 
    -Jeff
                               
 
From: JoAnn Hackos [mailto:joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:52 PM
To:
Dana Spradley; Ogden, Jeff; dita
Subject:
RE: [dita] some comemnts on the Draft DITA 1.2 architecture spec.

 
Should not we always refer to such changes as “specializations” rather than “customizations”?
 
JoAnn Hackos PhD
President
Comtech Services, Inc.
joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com
Skype joannhackos
 



From: Dana Spradley [mailto:dana.spradley@oracle.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:46 AM
To:
Ogden, Jeff; dita
Subject:
RE: [dita] some comemnts on the Draft DITA 1.2 architecture spec.

 
Is "customized"/"customization" really appropriate here? Are is this something we're considering less drastic than customization?
-----Original Message-----
From:
Ogden, Jeff [mailto:jogden@ptc.com]
Sent:
Monday, June 29, 2009 7:37 PM
To:
dita
Subject:
[dita] some comemnts on the Draft DITA 1.2 architecture spec.

Some suggestions with additions underlined and blue and deletions strikeout and red:
 

Concrete document types

A given DITA map or topic document is governed by a concrete document type that defines the set of structural modules (topic or map types), domain modules, and constraints modules that the map or topic can use, as well as the degree of topic nesting that is allowed within the document type. While the DITA specification includes a starter set of concrete document types for common combinations of modules, those document types are not mandatory and, for most many DITA users, include more things definitions than they need for their documents. In general, any production use of DITA involves definition of the DITA users are encouraged to create their own customized concrete document types that include the set of modules best suited to local requirements. This always customization requires the creation of "local shell" document types, even if all they do is omit unneeded modules or apply constraints to the standard DITA-defined vocabulary. Thus you should expect in any production use of DITA that the first step is to define local concrete document types.
Note: The simplest form of local shell is an unaltered copy of one of the DITA TC-provided shells to which is associated a new public identifier or absolute URI, reflecting ownership of the new shell by its creator. For example, to create a local shell DTD for generic maps, simply copy the TC-provided file "map.dtd" to a local location, possibly using a new name for the file to avoid confusion, and create an entity mapping catalog that binds the new copy of map.dtd to a public ID or absolute URI you define, e.g. PUBLIC "-//example.com/DTD DITA NewMap//EN or urn:public:example.dom/dita/doctypes/map urn:example.com:names:dita:xsd:newmap.xsd.

Concrete DITA document types must SHOULD follow the implementation design patterns defined in this specification. This ensures consistency of implementation and also serves to make the task of creating concrete document types almost entirely mechanical.
        Modularization and integration of design
Specialization hierarchies are implemented as sets of vocabulary modules, each of which declares the markup and entities that are unique to a specialization. The modules must be integrated into a document type before they can be used.

        DTD syntax specialization design patterns
To be extensible and backward compatible,
DITA requires that a DTD implementation of structural and domain specialization modules SHOULD conform to well-defined the design patterns used for the DTD shells included as part of the DITA specification and described in this topic.
        XSD schema specialization design patterns
To be extensible and backward compatible,
DITA requires that an XML schema implementation of structural and domain specialization modules SHOULD conform to well-defined the design patterns used for the XML schema shells included as part fo the DITA specification and described in this topic.
While we can require that customized concrete document types follow the rules as outlined in the DITA 1.2 speciication, I don’t think that we can require that they follow the design patterns or that the design patterns are well enough specified to allow them to be a requirement.  At this stage I think the design patters are more of a “best practice” than a requirement that must be followed and so they SHOULD be followed rather than MUST be followed.
 
It seems likely that the section on “Modularization and integration of design” should be deleted since it is almost entirely repeating information that has been provided in the main section..
 
 
 
 
 
For the page dita-1.2-spec/arch/20090617/createConstraintsDomainSpec.html :
 
I don’t have any comments on the main topic other than to say that it feels as of this topic is saying the same thing two or even three times and that probably isn’t a good idea.
 
 



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