Boeing certainly can use <glossref> within <glossarylist>; simply integrate the domain into the Boeing bookmap document-type shell. (Boeing and its companies do use their own document-type shells?)
The question here is whether the DITA TC should integrate the glossary reference domain into the bookmap document-type shell that OASIS distributes.
Back to your company's use case, is the assumption that each
bookmap will have a unique glossary, and you want to build that
glossary by having all of the terms referenced by <glossref>
within <glossarylist>?
Personally, I don't understand that use case -- it would seem much easier to me to aggregate the glossary topics using a map or (kind of ick) a <glossgrouptopic>, but maybe I'm missing something important.
Can you write up the use case for integrating the glossary reference domain in the sort of format that we are using in the stage two proposals? For example, from the revise stage two proposal for the bookmap updates:
Kris
Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
www.eberleinconsulting.com
+1 919 622-1501; kriseberlein (skype)
Rather than putting the terms in a map, it would be nice to have them identified in a consistent location for processing. Glossref in glossarylist would do exactly that. As an example, each of our common terms are housed in a common directory. Today, we use a map with topicrefs that point to each of the terms. It works, but it is not the most intuitive for authors to create. Using glossref in a glossarylist makes the reference explicit and intuitive to author and to process. So why can't we put glossref in glossarylist? --Scott ïOn 10/7/19, 12:55 PM, "Kristen James Eberlein" <kris@eberleinconsulting.com> wrote: So, what are the implications for whether we integrate the glossary reference domain into bookmap ? Iâd think that a common glossary would be contained in a map, so no need for <glossarylist> to contain <glossref> ... Kris Sent from my iPad > On Oct 7, 2019, at 2:46 PM, Scott Hudson <scott.hudson@jeppesen.com> wrote: > > A common glossary for a deliverable would make more sense at the bookmap level, than individual maps. This is especially true for terms that might be used across chapter maps. > > --Scott > > On 10/7/19, 12:27 PM, "dita@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of Kristen James Eberlein" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of kris@eberleinconsulting.com> wrote: > > Do we want to do this as part of the revised stage two proposal for bookmap? > > If so, what are the use cases that support adding the domain to bookmap? > > The one that I've heard so far is to be able to have <glossref> elements > within <glossarylist> ... I'm not so sure about this, as I would think > that most glossaries would be in maps or <glossgroup> topics. > > -- > Best, > Kris > > Kristen James Eberlein > Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee > Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting > www.eberleinconsulting.com > +1 919 622-1501; kriseberlein (skype) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.oasis-2Dopen.org_apps_org_workgroup_portal_my-5Fworkgroups.php&d=DwICaQ&c=P3aKjizb3qsxp0SERaL2sw&r=YQWdLfM9mekBOdoMmoBdn9RgyqIHrveGolBbb4_uGWQ&m=zmL_FFbBK6yV3DA_ZN-BVlx2clLvVREkHwih_x3L9C0&s=Rhwi23EbDpZu8fLraTHdWpa10lESnOGD_ExFkBJg_Wg&e= > > >