Re: [dita] Take two: Eberlein Consulting statement of use

[Eliot Kimber <ekimber@contrext.com>]

The problem is that "implementation" does not have a crisp definition in
the DITA context. I don't think there exists a DITA processor that is
entirely self-contained and isolated such that it doesn't combine two or
more separately implemented components.

Also, "interoperation" is a bit fuzzy: there's interoperation of content
(two separate systems operating on the same DITA docs) and interoperation
of systems (one DITA-aware component communicating with another.

So either we need a clearer definition of what implementation and
interoperation mean in this context or recognize that *all* uses of DITA
1.3 inherently involve interoperation of multiple independent
implementations.

Cheers,

E.

----
Eliot Kimber, Owner
Contrext, LLC
http://contrext.com




On 8/20/15, 11:28 AM, "Tom Magliery" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf
of tom.magliery@justsystems.com> wrote:

>Can I belabor this point a little bit? I am not sure I understand what is
>really meant in general by this whole business of "interoperability with
>multiple independent implementations". What would constitute ONE
>"interoperation with an independent implementation"?
> 
>If Kris uses XMetaL to edit a DITA 1.3 topic, then has her implementation
>(a DITA topic) interoperated with my implementation (XMetaL)? Has mine
>interoperated with hers?
> 
>If yes to the above, then if Eliot ALSO uses XMetaL to edit a DITA topic,
>is that then "multiple"?
> 
>If XMetaL uses the DITA OT (a separate tool) to publish DITA 1.3 topics,
>does that count as one of the above thingies?
> 
>If I use XMetaL to open a DITA 1.3 topic that is stored in some CMS
>repository, is that one of these thingies? If yes, is that still true if
>the repository doesn't have any specific "implementation" of DITA 1.3
>except for having the 1.3 DTDs present for validation?
> 
>mag
> 
> 
>From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org] On
>Behalf Of Chet Ensign
>Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 9:16 AM
>To: Kristen James Eberlein
>Cc: DITA TC
>Subject: Re: [dita] Take two: Eberlein Consulting statement of use
>
> 
>How about "... they interoperate with multiple independent
>implementations." The requirement is "state whether the implementation
>included..." In other words, not hypothetically but in fact
>interoperability was demonstrated. Or else just say "The implementation
>did not include interoperation of multiple independent implementations."
>That is, interoperation with was not part of the implementation.
> 
>
>Just saying "all-inclusive edition" is good.
>
> 
>
>/c
>
>
> 
>On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Kristen James Eberlein
><kris@eberleinconsulting.com> wrote:
>How does this look? If it meets your approval, it could be a good
>template for all other companies that want to write a statement of use
>concerning their shells/specializations/documents:
>
>"As the primary voting representative of Eberlein Consulting LLC to
>OASIS, I endorse the following statement of use:
>
>Eberlein Consulting LLC has successfully used the DITA 1.3 Committee
>Specification 01, approved 21 August 2015, in accordance with sections
>4.1, "Conformance of DITA implementations," and section 4.2, "Conformance
>of DITA documents" of the all-inclusive edition. The specialization and
>constraint modules used by the Eberlein Consulting LLC implementation
>include all DITA 1.3 architectural features; they support interoperation
>with multiple independent implementations.
>
>DITA documents created by Eberlein Consulting LLC make particular use of
>the following structures that were added to DITA 1.3:
>
>* XML mention domain
>* Troubleshooting topic
>* Troubleshooting additions to the task information type"
>
> 
>Best,
>Kris
>
>Kristen James Eberlein
>Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
>Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
>www.eberleinconsulting.com <http://www.eberleinconsulting.com>
>+1 919 682-2290 <tel:%2B1%20919%20682-2290>; kriseberlein (skype)
>
>On 8/20/2015 11:47 AM, Chet Ensign wrote:
>
>
>Well, first thought is that the language in the conformance clauses
>section might be identical but what is in the spec is not. So if I said
>that my implementation complies with all conformance clauses in section
>4.0 of Part 1, that would be very different from me saying that it
>conforms with all clauses in section 4.0 of Part 3. And if you don't say
>which, how would I as an outside reviewer know?
> 
>
>Next, I'd go with '2015' not '2013' as the year. I speak from experience
>- although in my case, it was a ballot so I got loads of "huhs" back from
>the TC. 
>
> 
>
>Lastly, it does need to say something about did/did not include
>interoperation with multiple independent implementations. The point there
>being did your implementation demonstrate, in some way, successful
>interoperation with other tools.
>
> 
>
> 
>
>
> 
>On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Kristen James Eberlein
><kris@eberleinconsulting.com> wrote:
>OK, let's see if I can write a statement of use for Eberlein Consulting
>LLC that will satisfy the requirements that chet has outlined. Chet,
>please review and let me know what might need to be modified.
>
>The Conformance statement is identical in all three editions that include
>it; it is not present in Part 0:Overview.
>
>"Eberlein Consulting LLC has successfully used the DITA 1.3 Committee
>Specification 01, approved 21 August 2013, in accordance with sections
>4.1, "Conformance of DITA implementations," and section 4.2, "Conformance
>of DITA documents. The specialization and constraint modules used by the
>Eberlein Consulting LLC implementation include all DITA 1.3 architectural
>features.
>
>DITA documents created by Eberlein Consulting LLC make particular use of
>the following structures added to DITA 1.3:
>
>* XML mention domain
>* Troubleshooting topic
>* Troubleshooting additions to the task information type"
>
>
>
>
>Best,
>Kris
>
>Kristen James Eberlein
>Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
>Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
>www.eberleinconsulting.com <http://www.eberleinconsulting.com>
>+1 919 682-2290 <tel:%2B1%20919%20682-2290>; kriseberlein (skype)
>
>On 8/20/2015 10:34 AM, Chet Ensign wrote:
>
>
>Hi folks,  
> 
>
>It is great to see the statements of use coming in and with this level of
>detail. This will certainly help when the membership vote for OS is
>announced. 
>
> 
>
>However, I need some edits to what I have seen in order to comply with
>the TC Process. The definition of 'statement of use'
>(https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#dStatementUse)
>reads: 
>
> 
>
>"Statement of Use", with respect to a Committee Specification, is a
>written statement that a party has successfully used or implemented that
>specification in accordance with all or some of its conformance clauses
>specified in Section 2.18, identifying those clauses that apply, and
>stating whether its use included the interoperation of multiple
>independent implementations. The Statement of Use must be made to a
>specific version of the Committee Specification and must include the
>Specification's approval date. ...  When issued by an OASIS
>Organizational Member, a Statement of Use must be endorsed by the
>Organizational Member's Primary Representative.
>
>
> 
>
>So what you will need to do is:
>
> 
>
>- Include the approval date which will be the date that the CS ballot
>closes: 21 August 2015.
>
> 
>
>- Regarding the conformance clauses, either state that the implementation
>complies with "all" conformance clauses or list the clauses with which it
>complies. Given that the DITA spec is divided into the 3 parts, I suggest
>also saying whether it is with the clauses in part 3, part 2 or part 1
>(conforming to Part 1 or Part 3 could be very different things).
>
> 
>
>In other words, say something like this: "... in accordance with all
>conformance clauses in Part 3: All-Inclusive Edition, section 4.3
>Conformance of DITA processors."
>
> 
>
>- Include wording along the lines of "This implementation does <or 'does
>not'> include interoperation with multiple independent implementations."
>
> 
>
>- Lastly, for OASIS organizational members, just get your primary rep to
>send you an email that you forward on to the list or include with the
>statement of use saying "As <organization>'s Primary Representative to
>OASIS, I endorse this statement of use."
>
> 
>
>Sorry to add to the work but as I say, these will be a help when it is
>time for the OASIS vote.
>
> 
>
>Let me know if you have any questions.
>
> 
>
>Best, 
>
> 
>
>/chet 
>
> 
>
> 
>
> 
>
> 
>
>
> 
>On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Tom Magliery
><tom.magliery@justsystems.com> wrote:
>JustSystems Canada, Inc. is successfully using and implementing Committee
>Specification 01 of OASIS DITA Version 1.3 in accordance with the
>relevant conformance clauses and consistently with the OASIS IPR Policy.
> 
>Our implementation consists of support for DITA 1.3 in Version 10 of
>XMetaL Author Enterprise, our XML editor software. Features now available
>in XMetaL Author Enterprise 10 that were added or modified to support
>DITA 1.3 include:
> 
>- Editor display style sheets updated to include all DITA 1.3 element
>types
>- Key-related dialogs updated to provide functionality supporting scoped
>keys
>- Key-based reference checking updated to support scoped keys
>- In-place display of keyref content supports scoped keys
>- Ability to control which key scope is applied to a topic that is
>referenced in multiple key scopes
>- Updated Formatting toolbar with new highlight domain elements
>(overline, line-through)
>- Added/updated submenus for inserting elements from all domains (e.g.
>Release Management, XML and Markup)
>- Added/updated document templates including Troubleshooting topic type
>- Added "trouble" to available choices for Note types
>- Updated other areas of the Insert menu to reflect changes to DITA 1.3
>element types
>- Added new DITA 1.3 domains to "show/hide domains" settings in user
>preferences
> 
>-- 
>Tom Magliery
>XML Technology Specialist
>JustSystems Canada, Inc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>-- 
>
>/chet 
>----------------
>Chet Ensign
>Director of Standards Development and TC Administration
>OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
>http://www.oasis-open.org
>
>Primary: +1 973-996-2298 <tel:%2B1%20973-996-2298>
>Mobile: +1 201-341-1393 <tel:%2B1%20201-341-1393>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>-- 
>
>/chet 
>----------------
>Chet Ensign
>Director of Standards Development and TC Administration
>OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
>http://www.oasis-open.org
>
>Primary: +1 973-996-2298 <tel:%2B1%20973-996-2298>
>Mobile: +1 201-341-1393 <tel:%2B1%20201-341-1393>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>-- 
>
>/chet 
>----------------
>Chet Ensign
>Director of Standards Development and TC Administration
>OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
>http://www.oasis-open.org
>
>Primary: +1 973-996-2298
>Mobile: +1 201-341-1393