RE: vocabulary module [was: results from recent DITA 1.2 terminology discussions]

["Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <bnevin@cisco.com>]

For the "no further direct dependencies" semantics of the word "atomic",
how about adding the word "completely"?

The uniquely-named collection of element type and attribute type 
declarations that completely defines a map type, topic type, or domain.

Or is there some complication hidden in your words "further" and
"direct"? 
Further: Are there some direct dependencies and we're saying there are
no additional ones? 
Direct: are there indirect dependencies?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eliot Kimber [mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:34 AM
> To: Bruce Nevin (bnevin); tself@hyperwrite.com; dita
> Subject: Re: vocabulary module [was: results from recent DITA 
> 1.2 terminology discussions]
> 
> On 11/18/09 9:29 AM, "Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <bnevin@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> > Could you clarify the phrase "unit of element type or 
> attribute type 
> > declaration" please?
> > Do you mean "unit of ... declarations"? Would "set of ... 
> declarations"
> > be equivalent?
> 
> "set of" is OK. 
> 
> I was trying to convey that atomic nature of a vocabulary 
> module, that is, that a vocabulary module has no further 
> direct dependencies. Clearly I didn't get that across.
> 
> >> For a given map type,
> >> topic type, or domain, there is exactly one vocabulary module that 
> >> defines it.
> > 
> > Are there any vocabulary modules that do not define a map 
> type, topic 
> > type, or domain?
> 
> No, that is the complete set of vocabulary modules.
>  
> > If not, could we say something like this?
> > 
> > The uniquely-named collection of element type and attribute type 
> > declarations that defines a map type, topic type, or domain.
> > 
> >> An abstract module may be implemented by any number of different 
> >> constraint mechanisms (DTDs, XSDs, etc.).
> >> However, for a given constraint mechanism, there should be at most 
> >> one authoritative declaration of the module.
> > 
> > We already said it is unique. ("The ... collection ... that defines"
> > says there's just one.) We already know that anything in 
> DITA may be 
> > implemented by DTD or XSD. If there's a gotcha to warn 
> about, maybe it 
> > should be stated more explicitly elsewhere.
> > 
> > Could the definition thus be reduced to that one sentence?
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> E.
> 
> 
> --
> Eliot Kimber
> Senior Solutions Architect
> "Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together"
> Main: 610.631.6770
> www.reallysi.com
> www.rsuitecms.com
> 
>