[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 25 August 2015 uploaded
Not to belabor the point, but it's technically a modified version of the OASIS Exchange table model (which is what I've heard it called, although the OASIS page on the subject calls it the 'XML Exchange Table Model'), to add common DITA attributes (@class and a few others) as well as @rotate and @orient, which are in CALS but not in OASIS Exchange. Chris Chris Nitchie (734) 330-2978 chris.nitchie@oberontech.com www.oberontech.com <http://www.oberontech.com/> Follow us: <https://www.facebook.com/oberontech> <https://twitter.com/oberontech> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/oberon-technologies> On 8/26/15, 10:45 AM, "dita@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of Eliot Kimber" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of ekimber@contrext.com> wrote: >Actually, it uses the OASIS exchange table model, which is a proper subset >of the CALS model. > >Cheers, > >E. >---- >Eliot Kimber, Owner >Contrext, LLC >http://contrext.com > > > > >On 8/26/15, 9:39 AM, "Nancy Harrison" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf >of nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com> wrote: > >>DITA doesn't use the CALS table model, though DocBook does. It does use >>the HTML Exchange Table model. >> >> >>In any case, I'll change the attribution. >> >> >>Nancy >> >> >>_____________ >>Nancy Harrison >>Infobridge Solutions >>nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com >> >> >>On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Bob Thomas <bob.thomas@tagsmiths.com> >>wrote: >> >>I actually meant the CALS table model >><https://www.oasis-open.org/specs/a502.htm>. But, I think that I wrongly >>referred to it as the OASIS Open table model. >> >>On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Tom Magliery >><tom.magliery@justsystems.com> wrote: >> >>Hi Nancy, I did not say this. I think maybe it was Bob. >> >>" tom; what about table model html exchange tagle model" >> >>mag >> >> >>From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org] On >>Behalf Of Nancy Harrison >>Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 3:21 PM >>To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org >>Subject: [dita] Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 25 August 2015 uploaded >> >> >>Submitter's message >>ActionItems: >>1. David will submit Statement of Use today >>2. All TC voting members: Once ballot is opened, vote on moving spec to a >>candidate standard. >>3. Eliot, Robert, Chris, Michael, and Tom will review 'DITA from A to Z' >>article and provide feedback. >>4. Nancy will conven group to work on Committee Note >> >>================================================= >>Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC >>Tuesday, 25 August 2015 >>Recorded by Nancy Harrison >>link to agenda for this meeting: >>https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas >> >> >>Regrets: none >> >> >>Standing Business >>================= >>https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201508/msg00136.html >>(Magliery, 18 August 2015) >>Proposed by Kris, seconded by Nancy, approved by TC >> >> >>Subcommittee Reports >>none >> >>Announcements >>None >> >> >>Business >>======== >>1. Action items >>- 18 August 2015: Statements of use from the following TC members: >>Comtech Services, Inc. (Scott; completed) >>Contrext (Eliot; completed) >>Eberlein Consulting LLC (Kris; completed) >>IXIASOFT (Keith) >>JustSystems (Tom; completed) >>PTC (David) settled out >>Kris; all Statements of Use have been submitted, except from PTC >>David; we'll have that soon; I was just waiting till the wording had been >>nailed down. >>Kris; can you have it for today? >>David; yes >> >> >>2. Calendar for critical dates to enable DITA 1.3 to be released in 2015 >>Schedule: July - December 2015 >>Kris; we're on track for our dates, in fact a bit early, we had enough >>SoUs by friday; so we're ready to move to the next phase. >>[planning slides] >>- completed public review of spec draft >>- approved committe spec >>- passed 'material change' review >>- now today we'll request approval to vote on the committee spec, after >>which another OASIS TC ballot will be open for 7 days; then we'll submit >>the spec and supporting materials to Chet at OASIS for our candidate >>standard. He will take about 2 weeks to review it, then send it out for >>public review. >>Robert; at that point we can only change typos, if that, but nothing else. >>Don; if anything comes up at that part, we wait for 60 days after >>approval of 1.3, then issue errata. >> >> >>3. Statements of use >>- Statements of use for DITA 1.3 >>https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DITA1.3StatementsOfUse >>- Interoperation -- and what it means in a DITA >>https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201508/msg00137.html (Chet >>Ensign, 20 August 2015 -- Contains almost entire thread) >>- OASIS definition of a statement of use: >>https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#dStatementUse >>- Chet's clarification of what we need to have in statements of use: >>https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201508/msg00128.html (Chet >>Ensign, 20 August 2015) >>Kris; note above our discussion of OASIS understanding of >>interoperability; also, Chet was very impressed with our 12 SoUs. >> >> >>4. Vote: Approve the statements of use that are listed at Statements of >>use for DITA 1.3 >>Kris; if David is sure he can submit PTC's SoU today, let's include it. >>David; I can definitely have it today. >>Kris moved to approve the SoUs, Scott seconded, TC approved in consensus >>to approve SoUs including PTC's from David. >> >> >>5. Motion to approve CS01 as a Candidate OASIS standard: >>Kris moved to approve CS01 as a Candidate OASIS standard, using the >>following language: >>Motion: "As chair, I move to request that TC Administration hold a >>Special Majority Vote to approve submitting the Darwin Information Typing >>Architecture (DITA) Version 1.3, Committee Specification 01 at >>https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=56340&wg_ab >>brev=dita as a Candidate OASIS Standard." >>Motion was seconded by Don. >>Results: approved 13-0 >>voting 'yes' 13 (Anderson, Day, Doherty, Eberlein, Harrison, Helfinstine, >>Hudson, Kimber, Magliery, Nitchie, Priestley, Sirois, Thomas) >>voting 'no' 0 >> >> >>6. Request a Special Majority Vote to Proceed to Candidate OASIS Standard >>Info needed for this request logged at the following URL: >>https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DITA1.3TCAdminRequests#Request_a_Special_ >>Majority_Vote_to_Proceed_to_Candidate_OASIS_Standard >>Two items that we need to review: >>Clear English-language summary of the specification >>kris; based thisson similar form to 1.2; basic abstract for spec, the >>list of new features >>everyone comfortable with this? >>robt; are we allowed to say rng is normative version of dtd files? >>kris; not sure, we couldn't say the spec trumped the grammar files. robt; >>let's check that after call >>tom; also troubleshooting elements, not just topic >>kris; added to list of enhancements >>Relationship of this specification to similar work >>kris; this is same as 1.2 language. >>tom; what about table model html exchange tagle model >>don; this is about role of usage, not just play of exact rel. of elements >>between 2 standards. DB borrows from html as well, but they say the same >>thing. >>kris; we'll go with these, don't know if anyone reads them, but >>mp; re html question, we do borrow markup diretly from html... >>robt; don't know what line is between >>don; look at this in arch view; dit is different enough to not be >>considered related. >>mp; seems strange, but this has no rel to any other standard >>don; if it worked for 1.2, will work n ow >>mp; I'll buy that >>kris; i agree >> >>7. DITA TC review of Adoption TC white paper: >>"DITA 1.3, from A to Z" >>https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=56342&wg_ab >>brev=dita-adoption >>Volunteers to review and provide feedback this week? >>- Kris; we need volunteers to review this. >>- Stan; just as an fyi, it's already reeased; it's not out for review. >>- Michael; is it not a part of the Adoption TC's policy to get DITA TC >>review of this kind of article? >>- Robert; I looked at it last night, and it has at least one technical >>error, plus one item that's seriously misleading. >>- Stan; most of Adoption TC members are also DITA TC members. >>- Michael; but for the previous article, Leigh White's key scopes >>article, we on the TC were specifically told by Joann NOT to review >>Adoption TC stuff before the Adoption TC had completed its review, so we >>assumed that we would at least be invited to review Adoption TC material >>after that TC had completed their internal review. >>- Stan; there's actually no formal connection between the two TCs, though >>we could create one. >>- Kris; Stan is technically right, there's no formal connection, and none >>is allowed by OASIS rules for TCs. OTOH, when Adoption TC was created, I >>was the formal liaison between the 2 TCs, and there was a clear >>uderstanding that any feature article or white paper with technical >>content about DITA needed to come to the DITA TC for review before >>publication. I've heard a lot of concern from DITA TC members with >>technical concerns about this whitepaper about the fact that this didn't >>happen with this whitepaper. >>- Keith; as the author of the paper, we [on Adoption TC] have had our own >>concerns with timeliness; it was written 2 months ago, and we felt the >>paper needed to come out asap. >>- Kris; historically, when we have reviewed Adoption TC white papers, we >>did it in a week >>- Michael; the last time we on the DITA TC provided feedback, we were >>waved off from providing input. That's why we've been waiting. >>- Keith; I see >>- Michael; So technical reviewers who weren't on both committees were >>locked out. >>- Robert; officially, we still haven't been asked to review the article; >>I only looked at it - unofficially - because I saw it was out. >>- Kris; as TC chair, I am asking for reviews to be posted asap. >>Wolunteers? >>[Eliot, Robert, Chris, Michael, and Tom volunteered] >>- Kris; as a reminder to our volunteer reviewers: the audience for this >>is adopters, not implementors, so it's not appropriate for it to be as >>detailed, or have the tone, as the specification. But of course, it needs >>to be accurate. >>- Keith; in terms of tone, we want to keep it brief, no longer than 2-3 >>paragraphs for any description. >>ActionItem; volunteers will review the white paper asap and post reviews. >> >> >>8. DITA TC Committee Note: "Why are there three editions of DITA 1.3?" >>- Brainstorm of what we want this committee note to contain >>- Volunteers: Amber Swope, John Hunt ... More? >>- Kris; Paul ? has provided us with an OASIS template for an "OASIS >>Committee Note"; I built a draft, now we need authors for the note, Amber >>and John Hunt have stepped forward, but mostly for the all-inclusive >>(L&T) edition. We need authors who are interested in the other 2 >>editions, but first. what are we trying to convey in this? >>- Michael; we need to overcome that irony that we have created a >>massively complex system in order to make it easier to use what was >>perceived as a massively complex system. >>- Don; We should use the model of a cookbook; make it easy to find your >>approach within a sea of possibilities. >>- Tom; we want to help people navigate thru the reams of gobbledygook >>making up an OASIS spec. The one line that might be useful to them, the >>one that says, e.g. 'this is part 2', is buried in OASIS spec language. >>- Kris; so should this document talk about number of features, number of >>elements in each edition, compare? >>- Michael; I still think that makes sense >>- Kris; anything else? Michael; I'll put you on the spot >>- Michael; do you want me to rearticulate it? add to doc? >>- Kris; either, but at least provide feedback about what needs to be in >>it. >>- Michael; I think people get it, It was either 1) we trim the spec down >>to where it makes someone happy, because it has just what they need, but >>it makes everyone else unhappy, or 2) do one massive spec, or 3) do it by >>audience, with clustering equated to 1) minimal spec, with just basics, >>2) base + techcomm, which were already in gen'l use, or 3) techcomm + >>l&t, those were the 3 mail audiences >>- Kris; one thing we could touch; one thing that came out of 1.2 was that >>we were separating technical communications specialization (c/t/r) from >>the base, That wasn't the case for 1.1 or 1.0, and it wasn't clearly >>articulated; this note might give us the opportunity to clarify and >>expand on that decision. >>- Nancy; should the note include some historical context? >>- Eliot; I'd like to see a statement emphasizing that c/t/r are not base, >>theyre specializations. >>- Don; as an fyi, the first developerworks article on DITA talked about >>how specializations coud be put to use; we could go back to that and get >>it into this document, to illustrate how DITA is very versatile. >>- Kris; I think it would be wise to include historical context, also give >>us a chance to move forward. Do I have any additional volunteers? >>[nancy volunteered] >>AI; nancy will convene group to start work >> >>- Don; being able to express these thoughts/concepts on dita.xml.org >><http://dita.xml.org>, and have DITA thought leaders involved in it would >>be very useful; should it be part of blogs in >>dita.xml.org <http://dita.xml.org>? >>- Kris; that would be a great use of dita.xml.org <http://dita.xml.org>, >>but we need to get this committee note authored in sept/oct time frame. >>we can't afford to allow any expansion to scope of this, in order to have >>it in the time frame. >>- Tom; I'm not sure I'll be able to write any content content for it, but >>I want to be involved in the group working on it, and maybe I can provide >>some graphiccs.. >>- Kris; graphics would be particularly useful for this document; this >>needs to be a very tightly focused message, plus it needs to be out on >>time. Bob, can I ask you to help with stylesheets for this? >>- Bob; yes >> >> >> >>9. Campaigning for the DITA 1.3 vote: >>- Ballot info for DITA 1.2: >>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/voting/ballot.php?id=1968 >>- Spreadsheet of OASIS voting members who will vote to approve DITA 1.3: >>http://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/dita/administratio >>n/voting-OASIS-members-August-2015.xlsx >>o The spreadsheet includes e-mail addresses, whether a company uses DITA, >>whether the company is a TC member, and whether the company voted Yes on >>DITA 1.2 >>Kris; we're looking for a campaign coordinater for this effort. Maybe >>Tom?? >> >> >>Other: >>Kris; I'd like to announce that Tom will be taking on the role as an >>additional TC sec'y, given there's so much going on. >>Don; it makes us look good, that we're so busy. >>Kris; I will also try to share the workload a bit. >> >> >> >>12 noon ET Close >> >> >>-- Ms. Nancy Harrison >>Document Name: DITA TC Meeting Minutes 25 August 2015 >><https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/document.php?document_ >>id=56348> >>________________________________________ >> >>No description provided. >>Download Latest Revision >><https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/56348/lat >>est/minutes20150825.txt> >>Public Download Link >><https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=56348&wg_a >>bbrev=dita> >>________________________________________ >> >>Submitter: Ms. Nancy Harrison >>Group: OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC >>Folder: Meeting Notes >>Date submitted: 2015-08-25 15:20:34 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>-- >>Bob Thomas+1 720 201 8260 <tel:%2B1%20720%20201%208260> >>Skype: bob.thomas.colorado >>Instant messaging: Gmail chat (bob.thomas@tagsmiths.com) or Skype >>Time zone: Mountain (GMT-7) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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]