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: DITA 1.2 terminology


Title: Re: Attempt to group the DITA terminology into logical sections
I am going to miss the next two TC meetings, but I don't want to hinder the resolution of items that pertain to terminology.

I facilitated a call about terminology on 29 October, which led to two action items:

  1. Gershon to propose a logical ordering of terms, which he did the following week.
  2. Agenda item for the TC to discuss the following points at a meeting:
    • Concrete document type
      • Do we need this term? Is it a widely accepted term?
      • How is a "Concrete document type" different from a "DITA document type"
    • The notes in the entry for "Local shell" are contentious
    • Does the terminology apply to entire spec (including Lang Ref topics) or only specific topics in the spec?
I've asked Jeff Ogden to "own" the second item in my absence.

Best,

Kris


Joann Hackos wrote:
Hi Gershon,
I’m in favor of alphabetizing the terms within each section. Any order we select is likely to be obscure to the readers.
JoAnn


On 11/8/09 4:04 AM, "Gershon Joseph" <gerjosep@cisco.com> wrote:

Eliot and Dick, thanks for the feedback. I agree we need to work on the section titles. I wanted to at least provide something out the door that captures the intent, but I'm not thinking I've got the section titles 100% accurate.

I spent some time working on the order of the terms within each group. The current order does assume some existing knowledge of the subject being discussed, which we can't really get away from. I'm also thinking that sorting the terms within each section alphabetically would probably be the best approach. Does anyone object to me reordering the terms within each section alphabetically?

Eliot, please let me know when you're finished adding terms to this topic and I'll reorder the terms and try to update the section titles based on the input I've received to-date.

--
Gershon



From: Dick Hamilton [mailto:rlhamilton@frii.com]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 2:51 AM
To: 'Kristen James Eberlein'; Gershon Joseph (gerjosep)
Cc: 'Eliot Kimber'; Bruce Nevin (bnevin); 'JoAnn Hackos'; stan@modularwriting.com; 'Don Day'; 'Ogden, Jeff'
Subject: RE: Attempt to group the DITA terminology into logical sections

Overall, I think this is an appropriate breakdown with
good high level categories. I just have a few comments:

- I agree with Eliot that the "Content and key reference
  terminology" category should have a new title, but why
  not make it "Content reference and linking terminology"
  so that linking is explicitly included?

- I can't always figure out the ordering inside the
  groupings. For example, the ordering under General
  XML terminology is Element type, Element instance,
  Attribute type, and Attribute instance. To be consistent,
  the ordering under General DITA terminology should
  start as DITA element type, DITA element, etc., but
  instead it starts DITA element type, DITA attribute
  type, etc.

 In general, I see some logic in some of the orderings,
  but I suspect they are often obscure unless you already
  know the relationships between the terms. I suggest that
  unless there is a clear rationale to the ordering that
  is obvious, or can be explained in a short sentence, an
  alphabetical ordering inside groupings would be better.

Regards,
Dick Hamilton



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