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

Title: Re: [dita] problem with packaging of glossaries
I agree with Jeff that the issues we are now discussing are not about 1 and 2 (or at least I don’t think so).

Please don’t forget that we need that web-based tool to make it easy for non-programmers to create doctype shells. Without that in place, I don’t see how we can release these various packages. People will not know what to do with them.

I wonder what might happen if we released “everything” and then the sub-packages? I suspect that people will prefer “everything” rather than trying to figure out what they don’t have.

Sorry for all the posts.


On 8/21/09 11:11 AM, "Ogden, Jeff" <jogden@ptc.com> wrote:

There are several related issues here that we need to separate out in our discussions:
1.      What is the folder/file structure and what names do we use when we distribute the DITA DTDs and XSDs?

2.      What Public identifiers and what URIs do we use to reference the various components?

3.      What doctype shells do we distribute, what domains do they include, and what topic nesting do they allow?

4.      How may packages (.zip files) do we create and what goes in each one?

5.      How is the written DITA 1.2 specification organized?

I think, but am not completely sure, that our recent discussion of glossaries (and concept, task, and reference) has been about item #4 (packages). Can someone confirm that?
We did talk about all of this quite a bit many months ago, we finally came to a consensus, and voted to accept a solution back then.  At that time there was a feeling on the part of some that DITA was perceived as being very “techdocs” oriented and creating separate packages, including the Technical Content “package”, was one way to address that and to give other collections of specializations more visibility.  At that time there was also the concern that Michael reminded us about that DITA was already quite large and was getting larger and that we needed to organize things in a fashion that managed that complexity.
For me items #1 and #2 are much more important to than #3 and #4. I think we’ve got the folder/file structure, names, Public identifiers, and URIs in pretty good shape now, so I hope we don’t make any changes to #1 and #2 at this point.  I’m more open to changes to #3 and #4, although this late in the DITA 1.2 cycle I guess I’m somewhat in favor of limiting changes as much as we can. I really don’t think that there is any single solution to #3 and #4 that will meet everyone’s needs and so I expect that we will revisit the question of what is included in #3 and #4 at fairly regular intervals well into the future.
As far as #4 (packages) goes, right now I think we are taking the approach that there isn’t any overlap or duplication between the packages except for the “everything package”.  That means that unless you are using the everything package or just need the base package, you will need to combine two or more packages.  We could take a different approach to packaging and allow duplication and overlap between packages, so that each package would be complete and self-contained.  That would allow us to include glossary (and concept, task, reference)  in several packages, but allow us to keep the folder/file structure as it is with a fairly small collection of things in the “base” folder. We would still need to figure out what is and what isn’t included in each package, but to the extent that we have a sub-committee for each package, we might be able to ask them to tell us what needs to be included to make their packages most useful.

From: Kristen James Eberlein [mailto:keberlein@pobox.com]
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [dita] problem with packaging of glossaries

Two key issues:
  1. Who do we anticipate being the potential users of the base package?
  2. Michael, I want you to look at the current contents of the language reference material for both the base and technical content version. Is this as you have been envisioning it?



Michael Priestley wrote:

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> <mailto:joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com> 08/20/2009 05:40 PM    
To   "Bruce Nevin \(bnevin\)" <bnevin@cisco.com> <mailto:bnevin@cisco.com> , <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> <mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org>   
Subject   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]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 11:24 AM
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [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]