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] Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 23 May 2017 uploaded

Hi Nancy, I’ve highlighted three suggested corrections inline below. Sorry my feedback took a while!



On May 24, 2017, at 21:00, Nancy Harrison <nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com> wrote:


Submitter's message
1. Kris and Robert will provide feedback within a week on 'DITA A-Z' white paper.
2. Alan and Nancy will also review the white paper.
3. When minutes are sent out, Kris will point Ian Balanza-Dav to them for summary of the discussion of his question on 2.0.

Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 23 May 2017
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:

1. Roll call
Regrets: Carsten Brennecke, Dawn Stevens

2. Approve minutes from business meeting on 16 May 2017:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201705/msg00048.html (Nancy Harrison, posted 22 May 2017)
moved by Kris, 2nded 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 (COMPLETED)
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
Eliot: Compare links provided by Paul Knight with those listed in the errata 02 documents at https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201705/msg00036.html
- Eliot; will do that this week
Dawn: Schedule meeting of L & T subcommittee (COMPLETED)
16 May 2016
Kris: Post subcommittee responsibilities topic to the list (COMPLETED)
Kris/Robert: Add Carlos's name and open an issue for "Add a multimedia domain" card (COMPLETED)

5. Items from the DITA Adoption TC
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201705/msg00041.html (Schengili-Robert, 22 May 2017)
- Keith; just a couple of quick items;
1) DITA from A-Z is looking for review from members of TC;
2) we've received Chinese translations for a couple of [original] English white papers, and don't know what a review process would be, how can we get them reviewed?
- Kris; re the draft A-Z white paper, Robert and I had promised reviews, I can review within next week.
ActionItem; Kris and Robert will provide feedback within a week.
ActionItem; Alan and Nancy will also review
- Kris; let's all cc: each other with review comments
- Kris, re 2), I'd suggest this is a question for OASIS; they have policies around translation of standards, though I don't know about non-normative stuff like white papers.
- Keith; so shall I reach out to OASIS?
- Kris; send mail to Chet Ensign (head of TC admin); but does anyone know of someone who could review it?
- Eliot; a couple of people on dita-users are fluent in Chinese...
- Keith; but isn't that releasing it?
- Kris; thing is, you have already-released white papers, and this is just reviewing a translation of them. Keith, who translated them?
- Keith; Hai MIng Kai did translation, he basically did it to further his own understanding of DITA.
- Alan; I noticed the translation was in Word; were DITA translation best practices followed?
- Keith; I can't comment on that. It would certainly make more sense to convert content to DITA before handing it off to reviewers.
- Kris; it shouldn't be too hard to modify our white paper stylesheet to work with Chinese.

6. DITA 1.3 Errata 02
Wiki page for DITA 1.3 Errata 02
Style sheets: Progress?
- Bob; I made some progress on cover sheet; still have metadata to hook up, but going forward...
- Kris; until recently, style sheets were working only with DITA-OT 1.8.5; we were looking for being able to use a more modern [2.x] version. Bob, let us know when you're ready for revieweers.
Open action items
- Kris will move these to our regular action item list, since it's hard to track them separately.

7. DITA 2.0 question
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201705/msg00047.html (Ian Balanza-Dav, 22 May 2017)
- Kris; Ian is asking about making changes to bibliographic info in 2.0.
- Joe; we did an auto-biblio generator plugin at one point; you link to each biblio ref in the topic, and the plugin generates a bibiography at the end.
- Kris; that would be germane, once you get into biblio info, it's a combined issue, 1) what's in DITA? and 2) how is it generated for publication? Joe, what you're describing sound interesting, is it proprietary?
- Joe; we did it for a client, but I don't think the DITA structure it's proprietary that way. I can get some notes out on it.
- Eliot; in the legal domain, biblio info can be ttremendously complex; for one client, we rolled our own thing as well, for legislative xrefs, but it might be relevant. But biblio info makes me nervous about getting it wrong, because it can be different things to different people.
- Amber; I worked on a project that included research; I share Eliot's concern for complexity; even with 5 people, there wasn't agreement on things.
- Kris; as an ex-academic, I second that as well. That's not to say that we couldn't put something basic in place. but we would have to consider whether it would be of any value to users.
- Scott; could we use the work DocBook has done on this?
- Eliot; I did that, in generating my own plugin, but teasing it out of DocBook was very tricky; seems like Ian is saying 'let's use a foreign domain', but the question is 'which one to use?' and the answer is that the TC has no interest in making the choice of which one.
- Carlos; I do my academic biblio markup in Markdown, and use pandoc to get bibtex to DITA, so I don't author it in DITA.
- Kris; that's a good piont; the TC could do something, but it might not be worth doing.
ActionItem; when minutes are out, Kris will point Ian to them for summary of this discussion.

8. Changes to Bookmap for DITA 2.0
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201705/msg00040.html (Notchie, 22 May 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201705/msg00042.html (Kimber, 22 May 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201705/msg00043.html (Nitchie, 22 May 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201705/msg00044.html (Kimber, 22 May 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201705/msg00045.html (Nitchie, 22 May 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201705/msg00046.html (Kimber, 22 May 2017)
- Kris; this discussion hit both 2.0 changes to old bookmap, and brand new 2.0 publications map domain.
- Chris; the first thisg is to allow general topicrefs at the root level of bookmap; not having those makes it impossible to use ditavalref. The other part is related; allow topicref and its specializations before frontmatter;
- Eliot presented concerns, specifically that allowing any topicref (and its specializations) there would undo all kinds of constraints. OTOH, we can special case that just ditavalref could go there, but still... Eliot also suggested we have a new container for keydefs, suggestion that we create it as a domain spec, then we could use it for both a new publications map and for a modified bookmap.
- Eliot; good summary, Chris. The issue I have with topicref before frontmatter is that DITA allows you to do anything once you can put an element in any particluar place. OTOH, Chris's idea of adding that to current bookmap is fine with me, because bookmap is dead to me; I already have my o wn publications map.
- Kris; we certainly hope that people creating books with 2.0 will use the new map rather than the modified bookmap.
- Eliot; right, so I think we should modify it as little as possible
- Chris, most often, people put keydefs in frontmatter, but that's icky
- Eliot; we should have fixed it in 1.3, but we didn't...
- Kris; it sounds like there's no issue about putting keydefs in frontmatter, it lets them be used throughout the document.
- Robert; the only problem is esthetics; it's really cognitively wierd
- Chris; and there is no solution for ditavalref in bookmap.
- Bob; I tend to agree with Eliot; I don't want to introduce topicref 'in the raw', people will run amok with it.
- Kris; I have to agree; writers have trouble with bookmap to begin with.
- Chris; if we're taking as a given that bookmap is broken and people should move to the new thing, then we can leave it a bit 'broken'.
- Robert; I tend to agree; adding topicref would include adding topichead and all of topicref's other specializations - it's a long list.
- Bob; also, doing this is a redress for deficiencies in 1.0-1.3.
- Bob; as chair of techcomm SC, I'll bring this up with them.
- Kris; to summarize, general consensus is that we don't want to allow topicref at beginning of bookmap, but a limited solution that would facilitate using ditavalref and keys.
- Chris; just a reminder; I'm already assigned 3 features, so someone else will have to own it.
- Bob; probably techcomm SC
- Eric; probably me.
- Kris; shall we move this forward formally?
- Bob; i'd like that.
Kris moved to add this item to stage 2, with Eric as owner; seconded by Chris, approved by TC

9. Review of stage one (in progress) cards
Project page at the GitHub repo: https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/projects/2
Modify bookmap design
[see above item #8]
New publication map
- Robert; I think we have a card in stage 2 already for this.
- Kris; so do you think this is it?
- Kris; I think it's item 29; discussions we had just now were about a remedy for problems in current bookmap, speciifically 'how can we incorpoate ditavalref?', and 'how to use keys?'. I think the one we have there is limited scope. Robert has moved item 29 to stage 2 and added Eric as owner.
- Nancy, so do we need a new item for the new publication map?
- Kris; item 28 addresses new publication map. It will probably be one of our main new features, so we should start talking about it and get an owner.
Redesign subject scheme maps
- Kris; thoughts?, comments on this? Chris; you've been one of the biggest critics of SS maps, don't work with keys,
- Chris; that's correct; using keys for enumerated values rather than just for refs is problematic. It's a use that's clever and interesting, but confusing for authors and has led to problems.
- Robert; I agree with that analysis.
- Kris; I'm one of the bigger users of SS, but I can see the problem. both SS and keys came in at 1.2, by Erik Hennum, and they didn't get much review.
- Robert; also, they were done in parallel; and there were no widespread implementaions of either until well after the fact. I like the enumerated value function, but the fact that it's done with keys really confuses things.
- Chris; I think of them as completely separate from maps, which is why, when I wrote the 1.3 keyscope proposal, I completely ignored SS. Though you can hang docs off a SS, which is great.
- Kris;; and that's exactly what Erik wanted.
- Joe; one of the big barriers, is that keys use URI, usually in URL format, and that makes it difficult to integrate with external systems, but putting URIs directly in content, becomes unusable with SS. One of the problems is that keys cannot be URIs in URL format, i.e. starting http://. So that makes it more difficult to integrate external taxonomies in SKOS, which mostly use that form of URI. Also, for the same reason you can’t inject URI-form keyref values directly into content, again limiting external integration options. I'd like to look at that and maybe propose something else for 2.0
- Chris; it would be really hard, e.g., to get a SS to interact with RDF.
- Robert; exactly, OTOH, a stated limitation of this was 'we are not trying to create a fully functional taxonomy tool', what went in was the stuff that Erik personally found useful.
- Joe; we'd like to help clarify the spec to offer some clear guidance on where DITA stops and other tools need to come in.
- Kris; this is a big issue, it may result in multiple 2.0 proposals. Chris, I don't know whether your concerns also interact with the classification domain, which relies on SS.
- Chris; I don't know much about classification.
- Kris; not many folks are using it. Zoomin is bringing stuff in, but not using it much.
- Joe; it's the same here, we have used SS a bit, but not classifiation domain. In my DITA NA talk about doing futureproof taxonomy work in DITA, I evaluated various approaches. Classification maps failed some important tests, though SS was useful in its own right.
- Robert; same thing; it also came out of Erik's concerns, and not even IBM is using it much.
- Kris; part of what made it painful to use is that classification bloated up all the ditamaps; we had to deal with proliferation of subject stuff, and there's no way to hide it from view.
- Robert; and lots of work was required to get the keys set on individual elements.
- Kris; outside of IBM, DITA-OT does next to nothing with it. I've wished that there was functionality implied in DITA-OT to make its use easier, but there isn't.
- Kris; i'll open an issue on this and associate it with the minutes for this call.

Deb will be starting a new job 6/1, so will be leaving TC for awhile.
[TC members expressed regret at the news, hope to see her back soon.]

11:57 ET close

-- Ms. Nancy Harrison

Document Name: DITA TC Meeting Minutes 23 May 2017

No description provided.
Download Latest Revision
Public Download Link

Submitter: Ms. Nancy Harrison
Group: OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC
Folder: Meeting Notes
Date submitted: 2017-05-24 12:59:50


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