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] Product names and reuse


We looked at various options for using conkeyref to do as you say. The
difference being that we looked at using synonyms for each variant. But
this still has the same problems when translating because there is not
always a one-to-one relationship.

Problems is there just too many variants to manage. It's not just
singular/plural and possessive options, but also capitalisation - when
terms are used at the beginning of sentences. So the list of variations
gets quite long for a given term.

Luckily for us, the use of terms did need also require navigational links
to the glossary entries so it was an ideal solution. Compromises on reuse
had to be made though.

Kind regards

Mark Poston
Senior Technical Consultant
Mekon Ltd.
Tel. +44 20 8722 8461
Mob +44 7515 906032
Skype mark_mekon.com

On 16/01/2013 20:27, "Eliot Kimber" <ekimber@rsicms.com> wrote:

>Another potential issue with the glossary-based approach is that the
>currently-defined behavior for any keyref-based reference from <term> or
><keyword> to a topic is to make the reference into a working navigational
>hyperlink, which would often not be desired.
>If you wanted to use a glossary entry to hold variant forms of the term
>use by conkeyref, you're still faced with the problem that <tm> can't
>contain <ph>, <text> can't contain <tm>, etc.
>You could create multiple glossary entries, one for each variation and put
>the necessary markup in the <glossterm> element, and then use a key naming
>convention to have a base part of the name plus a distinguishing bit, e.g.
>"prodname_base", "prodname_singular", "prodname_singular_possessive", but
>that would be a lot of glossary entry topics which wouldn't otherwise be
>naturally related to each other, so that seems not so good.
>I will observe that the "variables" mechanism I defined in DITA for
>Publishers (and proposed but withdrew in the face of complexity
>could easily be adapted to do something like what Troy outlined, since the
>mechanism is completely semantic and doesn't depend on any existing DITA
>conref or addressing facilities.
>It also addresses the scoping requirement that keys don't meet in DITA 1.2
>(and may never meet given our progress to date on defining scoped keys).
>On 1/16/13 1:20 PM, "Jim Tivy" <jimt@bluestream.com> wrote:
>> Yes, I like the term and glossary approach.  If the name of the feature
>> name) is changed, then you can use a "who references me" on the
>>glossary entry
>> and read the topics to ensure that they still make sense.  If the
>>meaning of
>> the feature name changes significantly then there will be problems so
>>all its
>> contexts have to be checked.
>> For plurals and possessives or other alternative forms of the term the
>>link or
>> glossref key should go to the appropriate glossAlt/glossShortForm entry.
>> Note, glossShortForm is not fully appropriate but I see no other more
>> appropriate tag.
>> If we can use a fragment identifier in the glossref href then this
>>linking to
>> different forms could be like this:
>> <glossref keys="front.panel.plural"
>> href="geFrontPanel.dita#TopicId_FrontPanel/altplural"/>
>> For translation, it sounds like there are potential problems with word
>> inclusion mechanisms such as this term one.  Unless translation tools
>>also let
>> the translator view the "who references me" to review the contextual
>>effect of
>> their translations these problems may persist and the entire word
>> mechanism is brought into question for translation output.
>> From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org] On
>> Of Mark Poston
>> Sent: January-16-13 2:58 AM
>> To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: Re: [dita] Product names and reuse
>> Andrzej,
>> I would be interested to understand more about how, in your unbiased
>> these issues can be resolved in DITA. Or, indeed, whether you think
>>that they
>> cannot be resolved and need the support of 3rd party tools when
>>translation is
>> required.
>> In a project I have recently been working on we came to the conclusion
>> reuse methodologies were not appropriate due to the reasons you have
>> The translation vendor concerned raised their concerns about having to
>> translate reused terms (not just product names).
>> The actual solution was more about having to translate terminology
>> still needing to link to glossary entries. The result was that we used
>> tags to link to glossary entries. Where no content was defined in the
>> the value could be pulled from the glossary entry itself. This gave the
>> translators, however, the ability to do what they needed within the
>>scope of
>> the <term> tag.
>> This solution, however, would still fall apart if names or terms
>> changed.
>> I can't see that there can be a completely DITA-based solution to this
>> especially when translation is required.
>> Kind regards
>> Mark Poston
>> Senior Technical Consultant
>> Mekon Ltd.
>> Tel. +44 20 8722 8461
>> Mob +44 7515 906032
>> Skype mark_mekon.com
>> From: Andrzej Zydron <azydron@xtm-intl.com>
>> Organization: XTM-INTL
>> Date: Tuesday, 15 January 2013 18:34
>> To: "dita@lists.oasis-open.org" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
>> Subject: Re: [dita] Product names and reuse
>> Hi Troy,
>> Thank you for this interesting post. Your mechanism will work for
>>English, and
>> the small group of languages with a similar primitive morphology.
>> Unfortunately it will fall apart when you come to translate the XML
>> into any language with a richer morphology - the resultant output will
>> ungrammatical output and the cost of recovery from this will be
>> English is a linguistic freak (a fact that is lost on most monolingual
>> speakers) which allows for the relative easy substitutions that you
>> I you plan to translate your content into other languages this is not a
>> practical possibility.
>> Best Regards,
>> Andrzej Zydroń
>> ---------------------------------------
>> CTO
>> XTM International Ltd.
>> PO Box 2167, Gerrards Cross, SL9 8XF, UK
>> email: azydron@xtm-intl.com <mailto:azydron@xtm-intl.com>
>> Tel: +44 (0) 1753 480 479
>> Mob: +44 (0) 7966 477 181
>> skype: Zydron
>> www.xtm-intl.com <http://www.xtm-intl.com/>
>> On 15/01/2013 15:20, Troy Klukewich wrote:
>>> I've been watching people hack DITA for years trying to deal with
>>>product and
>>> sometimes feature names in a consistent XML-like way.
>>> Prior to DITA, I worked on a similar XML architecture
>>> (concept/task/reference)
>>> with a custom processing kit. With numerous product names and feature
>>> in 
>>> an almost continual state of flux, we decided to treat product names
>>> feature names as global variables with a mapping file for the literal
>>> (in English). The literal product and feature names were then inserted
>>> build time and appeared in the output. (We used editor maps to
>>> display the same content in the authoring editor for the convenience of
>>> writers.)
>>> The inherent problem with this approach is that the mapped strings
>>>must be
>>> translatable. As products and features can have plurals and
>>> these 
>>> must also be handled in the mapping file and accounted for in the
>>> element. 
>>> It is not permissible for instance to have a construct like:
>>><varProduct>s or
>>> <varProduct>'s appear in the XML content as translators will translate
>>> mapping file elsewhere and not be able to easily reconcile the plurals
>>> possessives in the content itself. (I think these were the only
>>>variations we
>>> had to worry about, but it's been a while I admit.)
>>> So we expanded the variables schema to include attributes for plurals
>>> possessives in the variable elements themselves, which the writers
>>> at 
>>> authoring time. This required some training as the process is a little
>>> abstract. You do not for instance add an apostrophe to the product XML
>>> element 
>>> when building a possessive, but select an attribute in the editor and
>>>let the
>>> build do it.
>>> The mapping file then contained base product and feature names plus
>>> plural and possessive forms.
>>> A build engineer maintained the mapping files and creation of new
>>> codes supporting first instance of new features and product names. We
>>> workflow where writers would contact the engineer when needing a new
>>> value that was not already covered, though most were set up at the
>>> of a release with the identification of new products and features.
>>> The upside of this approach is that the output for product or feature
>>> was entirely automated. If feature or product names changed late, as
>>> happens in the software industry, we tweaked the mapping file at build
>>> and the writers didn't have to do anything at all.
>>> As far as graphics and special formatting in some product and feature
>>> went, we handled this purely at build time with special processing
>>> instructions for the applicable variables. Otherwise, we're really
>>> about desktop publishing practices in XML and I'm not sure if DITA
>>> inherently support this or if those features should be handled with a
>>> processing chain for those particular elements. Strictly speaking,
>>> and graphics are a rendering operation during build time. In XML,
>>> shouldn't have to care about how to format a product name or add
>>> graphics to it. That's my philosophy as an anti-DTP guy.
>>> I'm sure there are other ways to accomplish the same thing, but this
>>> mapping architecture worked really well, saved a lot of time, and was
>>> generally really convenient all around for everybody once implemented.
>>> In short, I inherently think of product and feature names as variables
>>> whatever architecture handles and processes them must be able to
>>>address the
>>> issues of variables in text.
>>> Troy Klukewich
>>> Manager & Information Architect
>>> Fusion HCM
>>> Oracle Corporation
>>> On 1/14/2013 1:43 PM, Kristen James Eberlein wrote:
>>> A thread about difficulty in reusing products names has cropped up on
>>> dita-users list.
>>> Problem descriptions
>>> 1) Information architects or editors design a reuse strategy that
>>> around using the <ph> element to hold product names. They then
>>>discover that
>>> they cannot put a <ph> element within any of the following elements:
>>> * <uicontrol> 
>>> * <wintitle> 
>>> 2) Another team decides to use <keyword> to hold their product names --
>>> better 
>>> choice -- but they also discover that they cannot put a keyword element
>>> within 
>>> a <wintitle> element; they have to duplicate their product names within
>>> <text> 
>>> elements for use within <wintitle> elements. And the <tm> element is
>>> available within <text>.
>>> 3) Yet another team is stymied because their product name contains
>>> typographic 
>>> formatting (superscript, subscript, bold or italic formatting, an
>>> image) that cannot be contained in either the <keyword> or <text>
>>> And 
>>> while the text element can nest, the @outputclass attribute is not
>>> Architects and the writers are caught between a strong desire to reuse
>>> content 
>>> and ensure that product names are consistently used, and a need to
>>>have their
>>> company's name render correctly.
>>> Thoughts about how we might try to address this problem? And sense
>>>about how
>>> big (or small) this problem is?
>>> -- 
>>> Best,
>>> Kris
>Eliot Kimber
>Senior Solutions Architect, RSI Content Solutions
>"Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together"
>Main: 512.554.9368
>Book: DITA For Practitioners, from XML Press,

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