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] Interoperation -- and what it means in a DITA context


No, so far as I know, OASIS does not have a definition of interoperation. 

I think all the definitions you provided qualify. Product A being able to produce a document that Product B can consume and use as expected certainly qualifies. Also, Eliot's point is well taken - there is interoperable content and interoperable systems. 

So I have no objection at all to the notion that *if* you can produce conforming DITA content. My point for the statement of use is that the qualification in the definition is that the statement is to a fact "... included multiple independent implementations" not to a concept "... can support interoperation." So, e.g., if you tested your implementation using DITA content produced by someone else, as far as I'm concerned, you can say 'included multiple independent..." 

That is the nuance I'm pointing out. 

/c

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Kristen James Eberlein <kris@eberleinconsulting.com> wrote:
My interpretation is that all uses of DITA inherently involve interoperation of multiple independent implementations.

I author shells and specializations and:
  • Integrate them into oXygen and DITA-OT
  • Author content using oXygen or XMetaL
  • Render output using DITA-OT
  • Push to Titania Delivery or Mekon's DITAweb
  • Share documents with partners who might edit them in XML Spy or Framemaker
  • Share them with clients who store them in IXAISOFT

I think these are very concrete examples of interoperation. Unless OASIS has a specific definition of that phrase, I suggest that we use my above interpretation.

Best,
Kris

Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
www.eberleinconsulting.com
+1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype)

On 8/20/2015 12:37 PM, Eliot Kimber wrote:
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 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 




--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 


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