| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 11 October 2016 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 22:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
1. All TC members; please look at Errata01 doc on web site. One thing to consider; should we produce HTML chunked as a single doc as well as in chunks? If you think so, send email to list
2. All TC members please read the latest version of SC governance doc and let Bob know if he missed or mixed up anything.
3. Bob will update SC governance doc to fix typo.
4. Kris; will talk to Dawn, AMber, and JohnH about L&T SC leadership.
5. All TC members need to consider what enhancesments and/or changes to 1.3 metadata are needed for 2.0.
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 11 October 2016
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
Regrets: Dawn Stevens, Tom Magliery, Joe Storbeck, Stan Doherty
Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201610/msg00043.html (Nancy Harrison, 11 October 2016)
Proposed by Kris, seconded by Dick, approved by TC
1. Action Items
Robert: Produce initial draft of "DITA and DITA-OT" committee note (COMPLETED)
Kris: Schedule meeting for small group working on "Upgrading" committee note (IN PROGRESS)
23 August 2016:
Joe / Kris: Get TC instance of DITAweb updated with 1.3 DTDs; restore sync with SVN (IN PROGRESS)
Kris; I caught up with Mark Posten; he's updating DITAWeb to match newest DTDs; he's also willing to do a demo, Nancy and Deb are interested; it would also be good if folks from SCs who would be using DITAWeb saw the demo.
30 August 2016:
Eric: Review spec and suggest changes for issue raised by France Baril (COMPLETED)
Kris: Begin organizing subject scheme education for TC (IN PROGRESS)
6 September 2016
Kris: Revise subject scheme example topic pulled from errata 01
4 October 2016:
Stan: Send link to Help Technologies Guide and e-mail with Chet to list (COMPLETED)
Tom: Work on aggregated minutes for 2005-2011 (IN PROGRESS)
Kris: Propose wording on TC's responsibility towards subcommittees (COMPLETED)
Bob: Update topic about subcommittee governance [IN PROGRESS]
New DITA TC members: n/a
Special meeting of the Techcomm subcommittee, today at noon ET
3. Continuing item: DITA 1.3 errata
Scheduled for 6-20 October 2016
Kris; Errata01 finally went out for 15-day review; behind by a month on our schedule (1 week ours, 3 weeks OASIS). There are only a few things to be done, (since many updates are already done); one thing to fix in content model files, one item for Eliot in catalog files, some questions about a way to track work we do during public review of errata. There are OASIS reqs for keeping comment log, and internal TC reqs for tracking. Is there a way to streamline this and make it easier to track? It would be nice to have a process; any questions about errata or public review?
ActionItem: All TC members; please look at Errata01 doc on web site. One thing to consider; should we produce HTML chunked as a single doc as well as in chunks? If you think so, send email to list
4. Continued item: Subcommittees: Roles, responsibilities, maintenance of AKA "Subcommittee governance"
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201609/msg00044.html (Thomas, 30 September 2016)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201609/msg00045.html (Eberlein, 30 September 2016)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201609/msg00046.html (Hudson, 30 September 2016
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201610/msg00048.html (Thomas, 11 October 2016)
Bob gave overview of his amended doc. If you follow 11 Oct. link, the changes are highlighted in red.
ActionItem: All TC members please read the latest version of this doc and let Bob know if he missed or mixed up anything.
Kris; is the new piece on TCs responsibilities to an SC in there?
Bob; yes, so we have to review that part before we can approve it.
Nancy; it looks like it has the corrections we made last time, except for removal
keith; also, there's typo in first line.
ActionItem; Bob will update to fix typo.
Eliot; there's a small discrepancy between criteria for creating an SC and for remaining in good standing wrt leadership being voting members.
Bob; I'll fix that.
5. Continuing item: Issue with leaningObjectMap content model
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201608/msg00068.html (Sirois, 17 August 2016)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201608/msg00069.html (Eberlein, 17 August 2016)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201609/msg00032.html (Eberlein, 20 September 2016)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201610/msg00014.html (Sirois, 4 October 2011)
Eric gave overview; discrepancy betwen learningmapobject topic and what was available in content models. fixed content in errata 01, need to update docs as well. we can't change the normative text, so trying to take a different tack to solve issue in docs.
Kris; with this none of the grammars constrain so that only one can be preent. question is whether we can tweak the spec language to match grammar ifiles and original intent of proposal.
Eric; 2 possible resolutions - as part of errata 01, constrained DTDs/schemas to remove topicref from list of available elements, so we can remove last sentence (see his mail). Main issue is how do we rearrange text to say if there are more than one, how do processors deal with those after the first?
Robert; today, based on spec language, whenever we mention 'topicref' it means either topicref or any of its specializations, so language is awkward, but we4 could say 'topicref specializations' since we took out 'topicref' itself completely
Kris; so we could change last sentence in shortdesc to say 'topicref specializations. But for second sentence, do we want to delete that, or clarify it to show you only want one?
Robert; hard to get worked up about this, since not very many folks on this TC, or out in the world, are using this.
Kris; not sure whether we need language about what happens if you have multiple instances
Robert; it's up to a processor in any case, whatever we say
Kris; shall we use my second sentence from 9/20 mail, with final sentence as noted above
Kris; what about getting rid of this for 2.0?
Eliot; it's a useful type
Robert; even if it's only used by a couple of people
Eric; we have clients interested in it
ActionItem; Kris; will talk to Dawn, AMber, and JohnH about L&T SC leadership.
6. New item: FW: Metadata in DITA
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201610/msg00022.html (Eberlein, forwarded for Fabrice L at Antidot, 6 October 2016)
Kris; the questions by Fabrice were basically in two parts:
1. how does a user know whether two books are variants of each other?
2. why did DITA create its own metadata taxonomy instead of using Dublin Core?
Chris; #1 is an issue I have experience with. The way we solve that problem is by finding a metadata element that's common across variants of the document, such that we can query a db against docs with that specific metadata item. So when you start working in DITA, you need to develop your metadata so as to allow for that.
Eliot; a challenge is that the way you want to relate your publications is infinitely varied. It's hard to say a single metadata item would do for everyone.
Don; has Fabrice looked at 'vrmlist'? (though that wouldn't necessarily incorporate the ditaval used to create a specific doc)
Eliot; vrm/vrmlist could also refer to the product the doc is written about, rather than the doc. It also needs to cover variants in time, space, audience, etc. This may be naive; and different workflows will have diff issues.
Kris; his note says CCMSs have this info, and could export to maps, but they use their own sets of metadata. Should there be a standard mechanism within DITA to do this?
Don; but, as Eliot said, no matter what we say, it's really the top-level ditaval that selects content.
Chris; that's for different versions of source map, but not diff languages, or different chronological versions of the same document.
Eliot; it's not neccesarily a one-to-one mapping. Different editions could have more or less content. This issue also comes up in the context of identifying relations between different rendered versions and the parameters used to generate them. It's the same thing when you need to identify different versions in time or language. You could design a map that was a relationship between different maps. You need a general solution from POV of a user or search engine, but not from POV of individual client of CCMS product.
Keith; for keeping track of things from a publishing perspective, but also from a user POV. it might be good to look at some of the dynamic publishing solutions to see how they solve this.
Kris; for 2.0, I want to revisit what's available in base DITA as metadata; I wonder if it's time to look at that, and whether we need to add additional metadata for 2.0.
Keith; for accessibility reqs, we could be doing more in terms of metadata for accessibility.
Kris; no problem with that; I already wanted to do that.
Robert; absolutely, I'm in favor. I don't know what's missing, but I'm in favor of any that anyone thinks we need to add.
Keith; looking at WCAG and at our level of conformance to WCAG 2.0, we're now at conformance level 'A'; we should try to get to 'AA', ('AAA' is well-nigh impossible.)
Robert; since DITA isn't HTML, it's hard to make direct comparisons, but if something should be put in by a processor, I don't like to think that we should make authors put that info into the source.
Kris; for example, I have issues with some of the accessibility @s we added in 1.3; does anyone use them?
Eliot; Oracle has tables that require the elements we added in 1.3.
Robert; that's why I didn't oppose putting them in, but I had issues with the spec text that said 'our tables are now accessible'; they were always accessible.
ActionItem; all TC members need to consider what enhancesments and/or changes to 1.3 metadata are needed for 2.0.
7. New item: Git/GitHub repos for TC work
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201610/msg00038.html (Eberlein, 10 October 2016)
Kris; we need a discussion on this. can we generate any questions to feed back to OASIS?
Chris; every time I reset my working copy of Git, I have to google around to figure it out. But in terms of functionality, SVN isn't even close; so I'd vote for Git
Eliot; I hate SVN.
Kris; I'd like to figure out a way to poll TC members. I've heard from some TC members that they find SVN hard enough, don't want to learn Git. OTOH, we might move some stuff to Git, but leave others in SVN.
Bob; for example, stuff that more people work on could maybe stay in SVN.
Eliot; I'm sympathetic to the challenge in moving from SVN to Git; I like Kris's idea on going slow.
Robert; how many folks in TC actually use the repository? It might make sense to leave committee notes in SVN, since more folks are likely to work on them.
Kris; also maybe how-to material. But we might want to move spec and grammar files to Git.
Chris; I'm sure there are those of us who would be willing to do a walkthrough. The hardest thing to get used to is difference between 'commit' and 'push'
Kris; one thing helpful about SVN is that any change to SVN produces a note to the list; we use those notices. IS there something like that in Git.
Chris; there can be, there are a couple of ways to solve that problem.
Kris; it's also a question of 'what does OASIS have available?
[continue this discussion]
11:59 ET Close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]