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] definition of resource


I think this text below from the DITA Spec really defines what is meant by a resource within the context of DITA which I think is within the spirit of the URI definition.
There is no problem with us limiting the scope of what a resource may be in our context and thus defining what a resource may be.

Here is the embedded definition of "resource" from the current 1.3 DITA Spec that you eluded to in your comment. URI-based (direct) addressing

URI references address "resources" and, optionally, subcomponents of those resources. In the context of DITA,
a resource is a DITA document (map, topic, or DITA base document) or a non-DITA resource (e.g., a Web page,
a PDF document, etc.). For DITA resources, fragment identifiers can be used with the URI to address individual
elements. The fragment identifier is the part of the URI that starts with a number sign ("#"), e.g., "#topicid/
elementid". URI references may also include a query component, introduced with "?". DITA processors MAY
ignore queries on URI references to DITA resources.

I think this kind of definition is within the spirit of the URI spec but it should be moved to a more central place.

The URI RFC says:
"This specification does not limit the scope of what might be a
resource; rather, the term "resource" is used in a general sense
for whatever might be identified by a URI."

I think "resource" defined within the context of DITA is a fundamental concept - ideally in a glossary.
Saying that in local scope most processors will use an http or file scheme to make the URI references into full URIs (URIs must have schemes to be URIs).
For interoperability we should suggest DITA source should assume implied http" or file based: schemes.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eliot Kimber [mailto:ekimber@contrext.com]
> Sent: March-30-15 6:52 PM
> To: Jim Tivy; dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [dita] definition of resource
> The term is defined: in the referenced RFC.
> The DITA spec can refer to that definition or it can repeat it (with attribution).
> But we cannot change the meaning of the term "resource" as it applies to the
> processing of URIs. We do make the distinction between
> *DITA* resources (elements within DITA documents) and non-DITA
> resources.
> Cheers,
> E.
> —————
> Eliot Kimber, Owner
> Contrext, LLC
> http://contrext.com
> On 3/30/15, 8:39 PM, "Jim Tivy" <jimt@bluestream.com> wrote:
> >I think the term should be defined - it is too core to our discussion.
> >And the definition should be as restrictive as.  If we use the term
> >"identity" as referenced below we have to determine what does it mean
> >to have identity in DITA.  It would seem a key, a subject and even in
> >the absurd case any element could have identity.
> >We need to be restrictive where we can.  Or perhaps we could have
> >hyphenated definitions like addressable-resource where we define what
> >an address is (map,topic, binary or fragment) and what an
> >addressable-resource is.
> >
> >I think being vague or abstract is not good unless we can see that
> >being concrete hampers valid interpretations or uses of DITA.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Eliot Kimber [mailto:ekimber@contrext.com]
> >> Sent: March-30-15 5:33 PM
> >> To: Jim Tivy; dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> >> Subject: Re: [dita] definition of resource
> >>
> >> By "resource" we mean what the URI specification means by "resource":
> >>
> >> Resource
> >>
> >>          A resource can be anything that has identity.  Familiar
> >>          examples include an electronic document, an image, a service
> >>          (e.g., "today's weather report for Los Angeles"), and a
> >>          collection of other resources.  Not all resources are network
> >>          "retrievable"; e.g., human beings, corporations, and bound
> >>          books in a library can also be considered resources.
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt
> >>
> >> DITA is a Web application (as is XML), so for the purposes of
> >>addressing, all  addresses that are not keys are URIs and therefore we
> >>use the IETF and W3C  terminology that applies in those cases.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> E.
> >> —————
> >> Eliot Kimber, Owner
> >> Contrext, LLC
> >> http://contrext.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 3/30/15, 7:18 PM, "Jim Tivy" <jimt@bluestream.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Wiki has a review of the history of resource
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_resource
> >> >
> >> >Along the lines of some fundamental definitions - I think we need a
> >> >DITA definition of what we mean by resource.
> >> >
> >> >Something like, a resource in DITA is anything that has identity.
> >> >This includes topics, maps and XML fragments within maps.
> >> >This does not include subjects defined in a subject def (or does
> >> >it?)
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> >generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> >https://www.oasis-
> open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> >
> >

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