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] problem with packaging of glossaries

So correct me if I am wrong, moving everything out of the base package suggests to any specific group means that they have to begin specialization from the base and cannot take advantage of the existing work done to date. The concept, task, and reference are universal content structures but they are a little more specialized to Tech Docs at this time. This is one of the reasons we are suggesting a simplification of the existing info types so they can easily serve as a basis for any future work. I can’t imagine any group not needing these core structures. We need an interim step where Tech Docs can begin to specialize the existing info types further, but the rest of us can take advantage of the core of DITA and begin our own specializations. And if the TC agrees to the suggestions we are making for simplification, it should hopefully be easier for these specializations to happen.


Let’s not “throw out the baby with the bath water!”


From: Michael Priestley [mailto:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 10:20 AM
To: JoAnn Hackos
Cc: Bruce Nevin (bnevin); dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] problem with packaging of glossaries


The point of a separate base package is to provide the bare minimum of DITA support - just topic, map, basic utility domain.

So absolutely everything else gets relegated out to another package - and since we've only got two other packages, that means they either go into tech docs or learning and training.

I'm fine with renaming the tech doc package to something else, if it helps - even "key specializations" if that would do the trick. But if we move any specializations into the base package, we undermine the point of having it.

Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect

"JoAnn Hackos" <joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com>

08/20/2009 05:40 PM


"Bruce Nevin \(bnevin\)" <bnevin@cisco.com>, <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>




RE: [dita] problem with packaging of glossaries




I am in favor of Bruce’s second recommendation. What is the problem with stating that concept, task, and reference are key specializations in the DITA standard? Why should they be relegated to technical communication only? I just don’t see the point of that.
Even if there is a All DITA package, we’re not including information about task, concept, and reference information types in the base architectural specification, but only in the arch spec for technical communication.
I’ve never been in favor of this split and would strongly prefer that we include task, concept, reference, and glossary in the base architectural specification. That would leave us with the machine industry specialization, which is, of course, extremely relevant for many outside the machine industry, and the various domains (software, ui, programming, machine industry, safety hazard). Also bookmap. Why is bookmap considered relevant only for technical communication. It’s probably less relevant there and more relevant for DocBook aficionados.
Since I’m writing the tech comm arch spec content and the topic content, I’d be very happy to restore task, concept, reference, and glossary to the base arch spec. I could include a statement that these may primarily relate to product documentation although I really don’t think that’s true.
JoAnn Hackos PhD
Comtech Services, Inc.
Skype joannhackos



From: Bruce Nevin (bnevin) [mailto:bnevin@cisco.com]
Thursday, August 20, 2009 11:24 AM
[dita] problem with packaging of glossaries

This came up in the spec authoring meeting today.
The problem: <glossentry> is specialized from <concept>. <task>, <concept>, and <reference> are in the TechDocs package. This forces <glossentry> etc. to be restricted to the TD package.  But non-TechDocs folks need glossaries, and support for them should be in the base.
Two solutions:
1.        Accept this. Present it as an unfortunate fait accompli for 1.2 -- if you want a glossary, you have to use the TD package (or specialize your own).
2.        Move <task>, <concept>, and <reference> back into the base, sans TD-specific domain specializations, and include those specializations in the TD package. Present this as an interim step toward simplified topics being developed by the BusDocs SC.
Comment? Action?

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