dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 1 November 2016 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com>
- To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 09:54:40 -0800 (PST)
Submitter's message
ActionItems:
1. Kris; send info to Deb about what FAQ (for joining and being part of TC) should contain, will send out to whole list, e.g. ins and outs of navigating OASIS pages, etc.
2. Kris to talk to OASIS about closing Help SC.
3. Stan to add links from main TC page to Help SC work products.
=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 1 November 2016
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
https://wiki.OASIS-open.org/DITA/PreviousAgendas
Business
========
1. Roll call
Regrets: Maria Essig, Dawn Stevens
2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201610/msg00093.html(Tom Magliery, 25 October 2016)
Moved by Kris, seconded by Nancy, approved by TC
3. Announcements:
New DITA TC members; none
4. Action items
2 August 2016:
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)
30 August 2016:
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:
Tom: Work on aggregated minutes for 2005-2011 (IN PROGRESS)
18 October 2016:
Eliot: Restore DITA 1.x identifiers to catalog files (Moved to errata 02)
25 October 2016
Tom to upload meeting minutes quickly as a record of this vote (COMPLETED)
Kris to request that the errata document be published by OASIS (COMPLETED)
Kris to request an OASIS (non-open) GitHub repo for the spec (COMPLETED)
Kris to add her section about TC work to DITA vs. DITA OT committee note)(COMPLETED)
Robert to schedule a call with small group (DITA vs. DITA OT committee note)
Robert; sent out notes, will send out another,didn't hear back from keith
Deb: Develop FAQ for folks new to DITA TC
Deb; was waiting for info from Kris
AI; Kris; send info to Deb about what FAQ (for joining and being part of TC) should contain, will send out to whole list, e.g. ins and outs of navigating OASIS pages, etc.
5. Continuing item: DITA 1.3 Errata 01
Schedule
Announcement of public review, 6-20 October 2016
Comment resolution log for public review
Link to new package: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=59210&wg_abbrev=dita
Progress?
Kris; in pipeline, requested OASIS to publish, sent mail to Chet and Paul to publishh it, see whether it can be out by DITA Europe
5a. coming up on European conference season,Kris will be out for next 2 mtgs, Tom will chair, so who else will be out?
TC World? Kris, Eliot, Keith,
DITA Europe? Eliot, Robert, MarkG (DITA-OT Day)
so, will not cancel TC mtgs; Tom will chair
6. Motion to close the Help subcommittee
Kris; move to formally close Help SC, 2nded by Stan, no objections, motion carries. We'll close SC; we need to make sure the TC public page has links to any Help SC work products, we'll ask OASIS to formally close the SC.
ActionItem; Kris to talk to OASIS, Stan to add links from main TC page to Help SC work products.
7. Flurries of e-mails about Lightweight DITA:
Follow-up on requests to the Lightweight DITA subcommittee
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201610/msg00069.html (Eberlein, 18 October 2016)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201610/msg00070.html (Evia, 18 October 2016)
The (many) drivers for Lightweight DITA
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201610/msg00078.html (Eberlein, 18 October 2016)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201610/msg00079.html (Eberlein, 18 October 2016)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201610/msg00084.html (Andrzej Zydroń, 19 October 2016)
LW-DITA Target Users??
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201610/msg00083.html (Stan Doherty, 19 October 2016)
[see discussion below item #8]
8. Report from Lightweight DITA subcommittee (Carlos Evia)
Carlos gave overview; we've been working in LwD SC for 2 years; we need to be producing more output, LwD is an umbrella name for a set of DITA solutions. It's all about developing a 'limited DITA' profile; we're proposing to:
1. define XML grammar called XDITA, plus HDITA and MDITA, goal to be compatible with each other and with full DITA,
2. allow template-based methodology for defining specializations of DITA; goal is to let folks either 1) create a template, then use it, or 2) use an available template, to convert to LDITA,
This could be a way for non-techpubs groups to collaborate with techpubs, or across other silos, using the same content. We also hope that folks will start on LDITA and end up in full DITA.
For XDITA, we started with concept/task/reference, as well as generic topics, but no longer, we've moved to only topics as a base. We will deliver a template-based version. We're currently producing an XDITA plugin (just grammar files), and also working on HDITA and MDITA. We'll be having a call - of the unofficial LwD task force - to discuss a draft of a tool to allow creation of LwD specializations by template, Mark Giffin is working on this, we've done a survey on LwD expectations, for which we got 80 responses. The basic responses indicated that 1) people want LwD for authoring in Markdown, and 2) they want to interact across silos.
- Nancy; are HDITA and MDITA specializations of XDITA?
- Michael; XDITA is constrained DITA, and XML, but HDITA and MDITA are transforms from XDITA.
- Robert; but XDITA is NOT constrained using the official DITA 'constraint' mechanixm.
- Michael; that's where we're breaking with full DITA, and not using all its rules, because we're so much simpler. So we're not bringing the full architecture. So any LW DITA document that you see, will be valid DITA, but not following constraint modularization rules.
- Carlos; in LwD, specialization isn't built around specific topics, e.g. short description.
- Nancy; how does that play into interop between full and LW DITA?
- Michael; you can use a map to reference files of both types, you could also port LD to full DITA by changing doctype refs and implementing a specialization module for the LW DITA you're using.
- Kris; in the current LwD plans, LwD is a subset of DITA elements and @s, plus they'll need to add some elements and @s (mostly for media objects) to enable this. so the full TC will need to talk about this.
- Mark; there are also new elements for specializing templates, not just audio and video.
- Robert; is the specialization template a specialization of its own?
- Michael; my thought is to include them in the single doctype, which includes all that you need to create a specialization; we haven't split the document architecture into specialization-specific and authoring-specific components.
- Robert; wrt sn algorithm for converting an LwD template into a DITA specialization, will that be part of the standard?
- Michael; the rules will be part of standard; the tools won't be part of the standard.
- Mark; and the script for transforming XDITA to MDITA/HDITA isn't very long.
- Kris; everyone loves the LwD vision; the questions is; how do we bridge the gap between vision and OASIS standard? We need to have a 'proposal' for LW DITA; we had a Stage 1 proposal for it at 1.3, but we never got past that. We need the same rigor for LwD that we had for all other 1.3 proposals.
- Robert; but our templates for stage 2/3 proposals don't fit with the LwD work, since it's essentially a new specification, not a change to the DITA spec.
- Kris; I'm not sure how we bridge this; LwD could issue a committee note, with rationale, use cases, design details, implementation. But if we try to include all the details in a committee note, some of the content will only be appropriate for TC, not for public. So we could have that technical material in the note only for review, but not for the final public version. I'm not sure how to handle this, but let's talk about how to handle asking for a LwD proposal from the SC that the TC can process and approve.
- Don; we may be jumping gun, but how about using template model to crowd-source and manage suggestions for LwD?
- Kris; we couldn't do it, because it has to go thru OASIS tooling and formats so we have no room for modification of our stylesheets.
- Michael; i'm also not sure how that could work; it makes more sense to produce a Committee Note with audience requirements, etc. That would be useful not only for the TC, but also for public.
- Kris; the TC needs to know what LwD consists of in terms of elements, @s, reuse abilities (conref, keyref, filtering), and how its elements/@s, features, etc. relate to XDITA, HDITA, MDITA? What are the design decisions that are being made? Design decisions may not be made public - i.e. part of publically available docs - but the TC needs them.
- Michael; do we need an actual document, or is an early draft of LwD spec that document?
- Robert; an early draft could be the document. Not that since most TC folks aren't on LwD group, stuff that seems basic to LwD group is unknown to TC members.
- Michael; we can use my presentation from April 2016 DITA/NA conference.
- Kris; but we need something more
- Robert; the character of what's needed is exactly what we're trying to work out here; a final spec is too formal, but a draft spec might be what we need.
- Kris; it would be very helpful to have a Committee Note; it would be our opportunity to issue something that isn't a specification, and to let folks know more about the vision, drivers, design decisions, etc. Creating this will also help clarify things for the SC, and review from the TC will clarify things more.
- Michael; we'll do the Committee Note and the draft spec; is there anything in between? A good feedback loop between the SC and TC, for both the draft Committee Note and the spec, will be very important.
- Mark; can we use Michael's presetation as a base for the CN?
- Michael; maybe the first part is good for CN, the latter part is more a base for the spec, with a gloss of it for CN.
- Kris; the key point is that any materials that come out of the TC, have to come out of the TC, not the SC. Per OASIS rules, a SC can't produce public content. And the TC has a methodology in place for communicating with the public. Also, we have to talk about additional elements / @s that are neededd for LwD.
- Michael; our issue is that we're using outputclass as a part of the specialization process. but not all of the elements we're using it on can have outputclass in full DITA. We need to bring issues to TC as problems; otherwise the usage is a bit obnoxious...
- Eliot; I'm not sure about this.
- Michael; we could stop using outputclass and create a different universal @. But that would add issues of its own.
- Kris; what about having a distinct info type just for template creation?
- Robert; right; is templating a tool outside of specializing?
- Michael; question is whether a template doctype would be the same as the authoring doctype, which is something we wanted.
- Kris; my assumption is that specialization only occurs from XDITA topic? you can't do a specialization from an MDITA or HDITA topic?
- Michael; currently, that's the case; goal is that eventually, you could. But that's jumping the gun; we haven't decided on that yet. We might be able to make that decision once we've thoroughly analyzed the situation and semantics.
[continued to next week]
12 noon ET close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]