| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 7 November 2017 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 12:06:43 -0800 (PST)
1. Robert will make the change in the DITA sources for the Errata 02 branch, and also in the change log for the Errata 02 document, to fix grammatical error in the definition of the @keycols attribute on simpletables:.
2. Robert will move card for Scott's proposal (wrt sub/sup in glossentry elements) to stage 2 in github project board.
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 7 November 2017
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
Robert Anderson, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Maria Essig, Carlos Evia, Nancy Harrison, Alan Hauser, Scott Hudson, Eliot Kimber, Chris Nitchie, Bob Thomas
1. Roll call
Regrets: Carsten Brennecke, Bill Burns, Tom Magliery, Keith Schenglie-Roberts, Dawn Stevens
2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201709/msg00035.html (Nancy Harrison, 26 September 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201711/msg00005.html (Attendance for 26 September 2017 meeting
Kris moved, 2nded by Alan, approved by TC
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201710/msg00035.html (Nancy Harrison, 21 October 2017)
Kris moved, 2nded by Bob, approved by TC
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)
25 July 2017
Tech comm subcommittee: Consider whether to make proposal to allow steps to nest a stage 1 proposal
- Bob; SC met and there was gen'l agreement that this should be allowed
8 August 2017
Kris: Request GitHub repo for L & T subcommittee
- Kris; will work on this
19 September 2017:
Kris: Build errata 02 and ask OASIS to check the cover pages
Kris and Robert: Draft response to Radu's blog post and e-mail to dita-comment
26 September 2017:
Robert: Add @format to image in element reference topic
- Robert; this is done
10 October 2017:
Kris: propose a formal schedule for Errata 02, including TC and public review dates.
17 October 2017:
Kris: Request public review for LwDITA committee note
- Kris; see agenda item #5 below.
Carlos: Fix typo discovered by Eliot
- Carlos; this is done
Nancy: Contact OASIS about errata anomaly (COMPLETED)
5. Approve committee note draft and request public review:
Kris; because the minutes recording our vote on this didn't include the exact required language, OASIS wouldn't accept it. So we need to re-do it.
Motion: I move that the TC approve submitting Committee Note Draft "Lightweight DITA: An Introduction," version 1.0 and working draft #26 contained in https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/61969/lwditacn01.zip for 30 days public review.
Motion seconded by Robert
In Favor: Robert Anderson, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Maria Essig, Carlos Evia, Nancy Harrison, Alan Hauser, Scott Hudson, Eliot Kimber, Chris Nitchie, Bob Thomas
6. Report back from tcworld and DITA Europe
- Eliot; for tcworld, no drama this time (very different from last year); no 'dita is evil', but he DITA presentation was in a very bad room... The energy level was kind of low.., Couple of good presentations on IIRDS, but I didn't go to them. A lot of downplaying of difficulties wrt IIRDS. A good presentation by DITAEurope attendance was down (some as a result of weather-related travel difficulties?); There were some interesting presentations but nothing to write home about... Parsons also showed some interesting DITA specializations using RNG, and there was another talk on extending L&T.
- Alan; I did a LwD tutorial, about 20-30 people, full room, most were not already DITA people, which was encouraging. In gen'l, DITA interest in Europe is on the upswing, definitely more than 2-3 years ago.
- Kris; my perception is that the level of sophistication of DITA implementations in Europe is higher than in US.
- Alan; my impressions from DITA day; the LwD CN is not sufficient for implementors; we know that, but we need to be much more specific in the LwD spec, OTIH, the LwD CN is closer to a spec than most CNs
- Robert; that's to be expected; it's a CN, not a spec. but we knew that.
- Carlos; the LwD SC will be starting work on an actual spec next week.
- Scott; would have been nice to have a livestream of DITA-OT Day, like last year.
- Robert; from my perspective, as a participant in DITA-OT Day, it would be nice to have other people besides me and Jarno showing things and participating. OTOH, the stress level on George and Radu from not having to do a livestream, was much lower, so I don't know if it will be livestreamed or not going forward.
- Kris; and I think anything that reduces stress on George and Radu is worth it.
- Robert; as a participant, I'd like having it livestreamed, but ...
7. Review of the PDF and HTML versions of Errata 02
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201710/msg00030.html (Harrison, 17 October 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201710/msg00032.html (Eberlein, 18 October 2017)
Nancy gave an overview; the Errata 02 cover page mentions 'superceding DITA 1.3', but nothing about Errata 01, and the change log only includes changes from Errata 01 -> 02,not from DITA 1.3 -> Errata 01. I wrote to Chet and Paul, and they said we should probably mention Errata 01 in the 'related work' section of cover page, but it's up to us what we put in the change log.
- Kris; so we need to decide how to handle the change log. It might be hard to use formatting, since there's already a bunch in the log to show differences.
- Nancy; I'd recommend that we just make separate sections in the change log table for the different errata versions.
- Kris; we need to check this with OASIS; we probably need to send them a copy with a modified change log and get their OK.
8. DITA 1.3 Errata 02
Wiki page for DITA 1.3 Errata 02
Incorrect @domains declarations
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201710/msg00033.html (Kimber, 19 October 2017)
- Eliot; I made fix for this and made a pull request in the Errata 02 branch.
- Kris; are there any objections?
[none, approved by TC]
Minor errata item (typo)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201710/msg00034.html (Anderson, 19 October 2017)
- Robert; this is a minor typo, we should fix it
- Kris; all agreed? (no objections, approved by TC]
***ActionItem: Robert will make the change in the DITA sources for the Errata 02 branch, and also in the change log for the Errata 02 document.
9. DITA 2.0 stage one proposals: Discussion
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201710/msg00038.html (Hudson, 23 October 2017)
- Scott; this proposal ia based on feedback from listening sessions. Seems to be a general need for more metadata in topics themselves, and more industry metadata. I propose adopting RDFa; we could take advantage of elements already defined by DocBook in RNG; it would give us the ability to do much broader metadata.
- Kris; wrt the response from Joe P., he's sympathetic, but thinks it would have a large number of adoption challenges; his position is that RDF isn't very popular, as well as being hard to implement well, and adding RDF support won't get us easily scalaable, usable, functional metadata.
- Scott; he suggested JSON, but I'm not sure that would be any better, hard to validate.
- Eliot; what's the use case for embedded RDFa in a DITA doc?
- Stan; e.g., on the web server side, it's fairly robust to use RDFa to make personalized pages; if we could support it, we could extend our pipeline to web servers and web personalization apps.
- Eliot; but that doesn't require putting RDFa in source, it just requires a way to map your source to RDFa in your HTML as you transform.
- Scott; but folks want to have OOTB stuff
- Eliot; but that's a tooling issue; the details of what you want in that metadata are use-case specific, so it requires specialization in any case.
- Kris; this is parallel to our discussion with the IIRDS group, we didn't think it could be built into the DITA standard, but could be a very useful delivery mechanism.
- Scott; I don't see it as different from MathML or SVG; it would be same but for metadata.
- Eliot; but MathML and SVG are foreign vocabularies; this would be adding stuff to our own vocab. We already have something for defining attribute specialization. there's nothing to keep anyone from defining whatever metadata they need as specialized @s.
- Stan; I disaggree; we're talking about 2 different kinds of topics. for most orgs, going to marktg or community outreach areas to integrate docs, you can't expect them to do any tooling or specialization.
- Chris; I would argue that RDF isn't in the same category as SVG and MathML; it's just not as widely accepted as a standard.
- Robert; I've worked on RDF projects as well, and it was very complicated
and not at all robust; from what I hear, it's just not as widespread as SVG and MathML.
- Kris; I can also say that, as chair, I've given feedback to our SCs about this. I don't think we want to put it in the standard. It might be OK for SCs to do a specialization around this. I understand the need to ease adoption, but I'm wary about putting things into the standard.
- Eliot; yeah, I'd recommend creating a SC for it if folks want to add things officially.
- Robert; I don't knoe nough about RDF to know how it could be used within DITA in a usable way.
- Chris; we don't really have shared assumptions about metadata requirements across the community; we would need to get some more feedback.
- Scott; but we don't need to take a closer look at metadata reqs; this was my attempt to do something easy, but if we don't do this, then for 2.0 we still need a much better answer on metadata than we currently have.
- Kris; many folks in the listening sessions weren't technically savvy enough to distinguish between what's in DITA itself, and what's in the DITA-OT or a toolkit. A lot of metadata issues are about delivery rather than a standard.
- Scott; but we were hearing from authors, and those were their comments.
- Kris; I agree that metadata needs to be upgraded, we need to do some more requirements gathering.
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201710/msg00044.html (Joe Pairman, 24 October 2017)
Add sub and sup to glossary elements
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201710/msg00042.html (Hudson, 24 October 2017)
- Scott; we're mi ssing the abiity to do sub and sup in glossary items; we need something for aircraf t speed, but don't want entire MathML
- Chris; have we talked about separating sub/sup from highlighting domain; would need toadd highlighting domain, and then add a constraint for all but sup/sub
- Chris; I'd suggest we stay flexible and put the whole highlighting domain in.
- Kris; does anyone know why it wasn't included in glossentry to begin with?
- Robert; it wasn't specifically left out, but highlighting is part of the phrase domain; the fix would be to add phrase to these elements, which would mean they also include all the phrase elements in the progrrmming, software, etc. domains; the original intent was to disalllow complicated phrase content in the glossentry elements.
- Eliot; the whole point of this is having to decide what elements we want to disllow, and where.
- Robert; since this is phase 1, I'd expert to see the stage 2 proposal, with its expected impacts, and see what happens if we add phrase elements.
- Kris; I move that we move this to stage 2 with Scott as owner,
Seconded by Stan, approved by TC
***ActionItem: Robert will move card in github project board
9. DITA 2.0 stage two proposals
New items: none
11:59 am ET close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]