Issue #29: How best to handle <mapresources>? Feedback wanted.

[Kristen James Eberlein <kris@eberleinconsulting.com>]

One of the goals of proposal #29, "Update bookmap" is to provide an intuitive location in a bookmap for map authors to locate resource-only objects such as:

• Key definition maps
• Subject scheme maps
• Topics that hold information for constructing PDF cover pages
  

We have several options for how handle the <mapresources> element:

1. Define this element directly in <bookmap>. (In this case, I think it should be named <bookmapresources>).
2. Define this element in a new domain. I don't think we want to do this, since we have an existing map domain.
3. Add this element to the map group domain.

So, given these two option, which is the correct choice for the TC?

I don't have the answer, but I can suggest the framework in which we can make the answer. I think we need to focus on the user experience for map authors and information architects and ask the following questions:

• How useful will a <mapresources> element be in map? Will it solve any existing problems? Make anything easier?
• Will having <mapresources> available everywhere that <topicref> is available add to element overload for authors? Make developing maps more difficult?

If having a <mapresources> element in the map group domain solves problems/meets real user requirements, then I can support that.

If we only have theoretical use cases for adding <mapresources> to the map group domain, then I'll advocate for simply adding <bookmapresources> to bookmap.mod. We know that bookmap design has inherent flaws, and remember that the goal of the bookmap update proposal is "to remediate problems without breaking backwards compatibility."

--
Best,
Kris

Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
www.eberleinconsulting.com
+1 919 622-1501; kriseberlein (skype)