dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 16 May 2017 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com>
- To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 12:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
Submitter's message
ActionItems:
1. Kris will post SC mgmt guidelines to list
2. Robert will add Carlos's name and open issue for 'add a multimedia domain' item on 2.0 stage 1 list
=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 16 May 2017
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
https://wiki.OASIS-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas
Business
========
1. Roll call
Regrets: Carsten Brennecke, Maria Essig, Robert Anderson
2. Approve minutes from business meeting on 09 May 2017:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201705/msg00022.html (Nancy Harrison, posted 09 May 2017)
moved by Kris, 2nd by Dick, approved by TC
3. Announcements:
New TC members: None
4. Action items
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)
21 March 2017
Chris: Post to TC list about his thoughts for modifying bookmap design
- Chris; was looking at this; will post to list right after meeting
04 April 2017
All TC members consider what they want to see on the new DITA.xml.org site for the DITA TC
09 May 2016
Kris: In Kavi, make Amber and Dawn chairs of L & T subcommittee (COMPLETED)
- Kris; I've just finished this
Eliot: Compare links provided by Paul Knight with those listed in the errata 02 documents
Robert: Complete spec fix re fn (COMPLETED)
Dawn: Schedule meeting of L & T subcommittee
- Dawn, working on that
- Amber; are there any guidelines out there for running SCs
- Kris; yes, we've put together one; I'll post it to the list
ActionItem; Kris will post SC mgmt guidelines to list
5. Report from TechComm subcommittee
- Bob; we talked about separating techcomm content from core specializations. What happens to links for element and @ definitions that are in the core spec? We talked about this and I think we've come up with a workable solution. It's not perfect, but it mitigates more serious usability issues. We will include all @ and elements in separate appendices, which will be non-normative, but appended for convenience only. Links out of appendices to other things would be stubbed out to reduce infinite extension. That should help mitigate problems.
Kris; we definitely talked about doing that with @s, but I thought they were on the fence about elements. I thought you were doing a quick and dirty protottype to see what was really necessary.
- Bob; almost all the links out of techcomm spec go to @s rather than elements, so that's a case for not including them; We'll do a proototype of this so we have something to talk about as part of feature proposal.
- Bob; There has also been some work on a troubleshooting topic type enhancement; I've put together a prototypes; it adds a new element called diagnosis to troublebody element, right after condition and before troublesoulution. The content model is a section mix, so block level; it would include steps and steps-unordered, since diagnostics involves taking a series of steps to reach a conclusion. It also replaces the req of 'one ore more' with '0 or more' for the troublessolution and remedy elements in a troubleshooting topic. Finaly, work is ongoing on programming inline domain enhancements. Scott is working on that.
- Kris; please look at roster of techcomm SC and compare it to roster of TC to see if there are companies that should be more actively involved in techcomm SC. we'll see if we can recruit folks to add to SC rosters. Amber and Dawn, same thing for L&T SC.
6. FAQ for new members of the DITA TC
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201705/msg00024.html (Bissantz, 12 May 2016)
discussion; folks added items to Deb's initial list. see the updated list for
7. Use of term "DITA" outside OASIS?
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201705/msg00026.html (Alan Houser, 14 May 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201705/msg00027.html (Evia, 14 May 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201705/msg00029.html (Jang Graat, 15 May 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201705/msg00030.html (Michael Priestley, 15 May 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201705/msg00031.html (Eberlein, 15 May 2017)
- Kris; [overview] Alan asked about using DITA outside of OASIS; in regard to a blog post from DITA Exchange, a manifesto for 'Open DITA, with rules for ersatz conformance.
- Don; as far as the use of term 'open DITA', it's been used before. There was a manifesto that was from a user community with GPL licensing, no longer exists. usage has been out there. an attempt to capitalize on both terms open and DITA. It's fine in my opinion. I'd leave it up to OASIS legal.
- Bob; then there's a DITA OT, which is a slight co-branding.
- Don; so do we want to keep people from associating 'open' from DITA? This may be an area where we need to be sensitive to 'letting a thousand flowers bloom'. Let users get a foot in the door. As long as it produces interoperable DITA, I'd let it be. The DITA Exchange tied to platform that SimplyXML markets, which proudces not full DITA, but compatible DITA.
- Kris; only thing that concerned me was that it seemed to create an ersatz standard, with its own conformance process. an end run around the regular standards process.
- Don; I draw the circle in a different way. It seems like they're being more open about their process; not sure if that's really prescriptive or descriptive.
- Bob; there's nothing I want to pursue.
- Carlos; in academia, usage without citing is plagarism, but as long as they cite correctly, I'm fine with it.
- Eliot; I have some concern about an attempt to standardize something that's very like LwD, so I'd be concerned about that. There's already concern about DITA usage. There's implying 'DITA's broken because it's understandaable, so here's our way to fix that'.
- Carlos; anyone can propose their own version of a standard, but it might be confused with LwD; don't give too much attention to any blog poster that posts two paragraphs and says 'here's my "DITA'.
- Don; Precision Content has something similar, but more graciously integrates with the official DITA community.
- Kris; main acvtion items for us from this is 1) LwD sooner rather than later, and 2) work on a better conformance statement for 2.0.
- Don; Michael's outreach may help.
- Kris; but DITA Exchange is no longer a member in OASIS.
- Carlos; it's not fair for someone to get to influence LwD without actually working on it.
8. DITA 1.3 Errata 02
Wiki page for DITA 1.3 Errata 02
Style sheets: Progress?
Bob; I now actually have things set up in Github; current state of progress is that the logo is showing up on the cover page; I hope to make more progress this week.
Open action items
9. DITA 2.0 stage one proposals
X
[no discussion]
10. DITA 2.0 stage two proposals
X
[no discussion]
11. Review of stage one (in progress) cards
Project page at the GitHub repo: https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/projects/2
Add a multimedia domain
- Carlos; I agree with Robert on that [adding a multimedia domain]; we have that in XDITA,
- Eliot; I have a domain in D4ST that provides elements modeled on HTML5, probably similar to XDITA.
- Kris; we should look at both approaches.
- Carlos; I know they're building on what we have done in XDITA.
- Kris; Carlos, would you be willing to own this item for 2.0?
- Carlos; yes.
- Kris; should we leave it in the stage 1 area, or should we check and see whether it's time to move to stage 2?
- Carlos; I'd want to talk to Robert and get his input before moving it.
- Kris; but we'll assign your name to it on the card.
ActionItem; Robert will add Carlos's name and open issue for this item
Split base and learning and training
- Amber; what does 'splitting out ..' mean?
- Kris; we've been talking about splitting out tech comm and L&T into separate packages, with separate delivery times. e.g. techcomm would like to make changes to troubleshooting, but can't deliver until 2.0. unless they separate and become a 'profile' of DITA, [as Bob discussed above in SC report]. This would mean same thing for L&T.
- Amber; so does that mean that Techcomm and L&T are peer committees to DITA TC?
Kris; no, not peers, but not bundled toegther in the same package. The practical effect would be that the current part of the spec that deals with L&T would be its own work product. Before you and Dawn said you'd chair, we were thinking of taking L&T out of the standard completely, just do maintenance to keep it compatible, but not do any further work on it. If we didn't have an active SC, we couldn't continue with that work.
- Amber; so e.g. if they're separate. how do we indicate which version of DITA the grammar files are synchronized with?
- Kris; by saying that 'this version of the L&T spec is dependent on DITA X.X
- Nancy; main implications are 1) SC maintains/updates L&T spec (including new features if appropriate) 2) SC writes and produces that spec 3) SC gets it through OASIS voting separately from main spec.
- Stan; anytime we're doing something that separates pieces, we have to do some kind of interoperability spec; that probably lands on the TC, not the SC.
- Kris; this is analogous to techcomm and LwD SCs. we're aware that L&T has one more dependency than techcomm, since it's dependent on both base and techcomm, so it's more complicated.
- Nancy; it makes sense for L&T folks to look at what techcomm SC is doing and do an extension of that.
- Bob; so if you see something we're doing that's you don't think is a good idea, let us know.
- Amber; so the key is that we're not becoming a peer TC, so we'll have support from TC.
- Kris; proposal is to put more work and responsibility on SC, but SCs are always sub-groups of TCs, their work product has to go thru the TC, and relations with OASIS has to go thru TC, with support from SC folks. Please think about 'what will affect usability for users of L&T?' We need proposals to move L&T into their own separate work products, and ideas on how L&T users might react to this.
- Chris; right now we're talking about techcomm and L&T; I'd like to have guidelines and techniques to have a functional, repeatable process for other industry-specific domains specializations to be created.
- Kris; as for 2.0, we want clear guidelines for style and arch, laid out in 2.0 base spec and followed in techcomm and L&T specs, so we have repeatable set of principles and guidelines laid out to follow. And this would make it easier to bring in new industry verticals as we continue to grow,
- Chris; it's a way to build community and new specializations could sput adoption of DITA.
12 noon ET close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]