dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 16 January 2018 uploaded
- From: Nancy Harrison<nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com>
- To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 21:38:58 -0800 (PST)
Submitter's message
[Kris, Eliot, Dawn, and Amber; please review the section on discussion of contextless elements towards the end to make sure I got it all down. Thanks]
ActionItems:
1. TC members should look at aggregated minutes for 2016 and 2017, and think about how often it makes sense to produce these.
2. Carlos and Alan will prepare a reviewed LwD CN and a full package to vote on (no change marks in package to vote on).
3. Kris and Tom will go through the errata document and associated spec and make decisions about change marking.
4. Keith will go through all the RDFa correspondence and provide TC with a summary of what's been said on both sides, with what's ended up being agreed on.
5. Eliot will send out a proposal for specializing title-less topics (for both regular and contextless usage).
=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 16 January 2018
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:
https://wiki.OASIS-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas
Attendance:
Deb Bissantz, Carsten Brennecke, Bill Burns, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Carlos Evia, Richard Hamilton, Nancy Harrison, Alan Hauser, Eliot Kimber, Tom Magliery, Keith Schenglie-Roberts, Dawn Stevens, Joe Storbeck, Amber Swope, Bob Thomas
Business
========
1. Roll call
Regrets: Robert Anderson, Chris Nitchie, Scott Hudson
2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201801/msg00007.html (Harrison, Tue, 9 Jan 2018 12:46:39 -0800 (PST))
moved by Kris, seconded by Bob, approved by TC
3. Announcements: none
4. Action items
6 September 2016
Kris: Revise subject scheme example topic pulled from errata 01
19 September 2017:
Kris and Robert: Draft response to Radu's blog post and e-mail to dita-comment
05 December 2017:
Robert: Investigate issues that OASIS found re HTML generated by DITA-OT
09 January 2017:
Nancy & Tom: Propose way to regularly aggregate minutes
- Kris; Nancy sent out aggregated minutes for 2016 and 2017, but do you have a plan for future updates?
- Nancy; how regularly does the TC want them aggregated? It probably -doesn't make sense to do it more than quarterly.
- Kris; TC members, look at what's posted, and think about how regularly you want them.
***ActionItem: TC members should look at aggregated minutes for 2016 and 2017, and think about how often it makes sense to produce these.
Alan: Open DITAweb review (COMPLETED)
Eliot: Stage one proposal about redesign of image to include metadata
Chris: E-mail about adding new vocabulary element for inclusion of external XML; confer with Robert and Eliot
5. "LwDITA: An Introduction" committee note: Items from public review
Status?
Plan for moving forward?
Carlos; I've incorporated all comments; we need to have people look at the results. Also, what names should be listed [for acknowledgements]?
- Kris; anyone who's either contributed anything to the document, and/or contributed to any web reviews.
- Carlos; I'll need help from you or Alan to build a new CN, I'm not sure which stylesheets to use.
- Kris; we can have someone to help build for you. Bob has done latest styleshests. You should pull the latest plugin from GIThub.
- Bob; give it a try and let me know if you have problems.
- Carlos; will download latest polugin, build, and upload to Kavi
- Kris; wrt this document, the TC will need 2 things in order to approve it next week; a PDF of the CN that shows all the revisions you've made, and and updated package of the CN (no revision marks) for the TC to vote on at next week's TC mtg.
- Carlos; should I include DTDs in the full package even if they're not modified?
- Kris; yes, the full package has to include everything.
- Alan; wrt the time frame; do we need to make pedantic changes that OASIS requested for the public review version, and when? It sounds like we need to do that for TC review version.
- Kris; most of the things OASIS wanted were hopefully handled with updates to stylesheets, so we shouldn't have to do it for the package we vote on; if OASIS comes back to us with requests, we'll deal with them. As soon as we can get it up on Kavi, folks can review and hopefully we can vote next week.
- Alan; I can work with Carlos to build it.
***ActionItem: Carlos and Alan will prepare a reviewed CN and a full package to vote on (no change marks in package to vote on).
6. DITA 1.3 Errata 02
Wiki page for DITA 1.3 Errata 02
Errata 02 document with new information architecture (includes Errata 01 content)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201712/msg00011.html (Eberlein, 04 Dec 2017)
Status of DITAweb review?
Schedule
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DITA-1.3-errata-02-schedule
7. New item: DITA 1.3 errata 02: How to mark changes in a code example when the only change is the order
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201801/msg00013.html (Eberlein, 12 January 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201801/msg00014.html (Magliery, 12 January 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201801/msg00018.html (Jang Graat, 16 January 2017)
- Kris; Tom had questions on this; decision is that we need to mark the entire code sample as changed.
- Tom; I agree with that; Jang's suggestion was that entire block containing those changes be flagged; I agree in cases where revision marks aren't available around the piece that got changed.
- Kris; that's what we've tried to do.
- Tom; it isn't a big deal for this; but it might be a big deal if the whole spec was revision marked.
8. New item: Marking deletions in errata versions of the spec
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201801/msg00015.html (Magliery, 15 January 2017)
- Kris; in general, it's the errata document that clearly marks insertions/deletions; in the spec, we do change marking as well as we can. We only mark deletions in the errata document, but not in the spec.
[Tom had email that indicated deletions that didn't follow this model.]
- Tom; yes, I saw a paragraph that was removed, but the surrounding block is marked as 'changed'. If we don't mark deletions, how should we do that?
- Kris; does the TC want to empower Tom and I to make decisions about change marking?
Kris proposed that the TC empower Tom and herself to make decisions about change marking.
[seconded by Nancy, approved by TC]
***ActionItem: Kris and Tom will go through the errata docuument and spec and make decisions about change marking.
9. DITA 2.0 stage one proposals: Discussion
RDFa support
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201710/msg00038.html (Hudson, 23 October 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201710/msg00044.html (Joe Pairman, 24 October 2017)
Metadata, DITA 2.0, and requirements gathering (Eberlein, 14 November 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201711/msg00013.html
Integrating RDFa With DITA, Metadata Improvements In General
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201711/msg00010.html (Kimber, 08 November 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201711/msg00014.html (Joe Pairman 14 November 2017)
New e-mails:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201711/msg00022.html (Jim Tivy, 15 Nov 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201711/msg00023.html (Joe Pairman, 16 Nov 2017)
Notes on working with external metadata in DITA
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201711/msg00034.html (Joe Pairman, 28 Nov 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201712/msg00008.html (Joe Pairman, 4 Dec 2017)
- Kris; can someone go through all the communication about RDFa and give us a summary about whats been said?
- Keith; I'll do that; do you want a summary of what's been said on both sides, with what's ended up being agreed on?
- Kris; yes
- Keith I'll do that
***ActionItem: Keith will go through all the RDFa correspondence and provide TC with a summary of what's been said on both sides, with what's ended up being agreed on.
10. Continuing item: Managing "contextless elements" as for L&T Assessments and Objectives
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201711/msg00033.html (Kimber, 28 Nov 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201711/msg00035.html (Amber Swope, 29 Nov 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201711/msg00036.html (David Hollis, 30 Nov 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201711/msg00037.html (Rob Hanna, 30 Nov 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201711/msg00038.html (Kimber, 30 Nov 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201711/msg00039.html (Amber Swope, 30 Nov 2017)
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201712/msg00000.html (Joe Pairman, 4 Dec 2017)
- Kris; we need the same thing for both L&T and for the rest of DITA; Dawn and Amber, can you lead this?
- Dawn; The discussion that originally brought this up was related to objectives in a L&T module; objectives define learning strategy, and then the way you determine whether you're successful in reaching your objectives is by assessment. So it's important that assessments link to objectives. OTOH, objectives need to stand alone, and each objective has content and assessment associated with it. Currently, objectives are just elements you can have, but they're not separate stand-alone topics, and the question of 'what's the title for an objective' doesn't make much sense. A topic title is typically setting context, but an objective has no context; the objective is setting the context for content and assessment.
- Amber; the other piece is assessment; a lot of companies need to manage assessements as separate topics. So what is content that goes into the title of a question/answer? It's just a question & answer, so the role of title is ambiguous,
- Eliot; in the case of objectives, they not only are contextless, but they need to be associated with multiple things. We need to use relationship tables to associate objectives with different learning content objects, but objectives need to be dynamically presented in the final output. Objectives and assessments aren't resource-only, but they don't have a specific location in an output structure.
- Kris; so are objectives and assessments related or separate? That is, is there a connection between the fact that an objective shouldn't have a title, and the need for assesments to be placed dynamically in the output hierarchy.
- Eliot; So we have a need for topics that will need to presented somewhere in the output, but the location will be determined dynamicallly at output time.
- Kris; so, let's separate contextless elemetns from dynamic output structure.
- Eliot; the connection is that both are elements that would ordinarily be topics, but where the title of the topic isn't 'interesting' and would never be shown in presentation context.
- Kris; my thought is that the concept of a title being required in a topic is pretty fundamental in DITA. I'm not sure whether it's germane whether it's rendered as output; could simply be critical metadata in a CMS.
- Eliot; I'm not talking about not having a title, just that it's never rendered in output. In either case, you want a generic DITA processor to understand that it's not supposed to render the title.
- Kris; so are we looking for clarification in the sp ec on these topics?
- Eliot; no, we need a new fundamental topic type.
- Nancy; by 'fundamental' do you mean at the level of topic and map?
- Eliot; no, I mean a first level specialization of topic.
- Kris; so we can treat this as a stage one proposal for a new topic type, or we can avoid that and decide to move it to stage 2. I'd recomeend a email to the TC list proposing this as a new topic type, and we can decide next week whether it's stage 1 or 2.
- Dawn; from an L&T perspective, do our stage 1 proposals come here, or should we do more work on them before they get here? Aren't we breaking out L&T as not being part of 2.0?
- Kris; the prime question is, are we talking about a new topic type for L&T, or for DITA base?
- Eliot; I'd propose for DITA base, the need is wider than L&T.
- Bob; we'd need 2 types, for regular and for contextless topics.
- Kris; who will take and action item for this?
- Dawn; I haven't done a proposal before...
- Eliot; this is something I've been thinking about, I can put together a proposal.
***ActionItem; Eliot will send out a proposal for specializing title-less topics (for both regular and contextless usage).
- Kris; please do this for next week.
11. Updates from subcommittees
- Kris; what about TechComm and L&T?
- Bob; TechComm is scheduled to meet next Mon., it should be on calendar, I'll verify, we're working on separation of the TechComm spec from the base spec; that's our main action item.
- Kris; any help you need?
- Bob; not at this point.
- Kris; L&T?
- Dawn; our first meeting this year is later today; we've been dividing the team into champions of things to review in the spec; to see what is needed to become stage 1/2 proposals; wrt metadata and structure, We're still working on getting those reports back, meeting every other week.
- Kris; as a reminder to everyone; all SC meetings need to be scheduled officially through the OASIS calendar.
Other:
Possibility for open discussion about TC priorities for 2018
Where have we been? Where SHOULD we be going?
Are there new items that we should take on?
Ways that we could function better?
- Eliot; I don't think we should be in a rush on this.
- Kris; there's no rush, but it would be good to know what things we're working on and where we're going on this.
11:48 am ET close
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]