OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

docbook-tc message

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

Subject: RE: [docbook-tc] 5.1 next steps


Here is a typical SoU template:
ORGANIZATION has successfully used the STANDARD vX Committee Specification
01, approved DATE, in accordance with section X. The implementation includes all STANDARD
features; they interoperate with multiple independent implementations.

Documents that are created by ORGANIZATION make particular use of
the following structures that were added to STANDARD vX:

* X
* Y
* Z

Regarding Interoperability, here's something from the DITA list:
    From: Chet Ensign <chet.ensign@oasis-open.org>
    To: Kristen James Eberlein <kris@eberleinconsulting.com>
    Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:40:40 -0400

No, so far as I know, OASIS does not have a definition of interoperation. 

I think all the definitions you provided qualify. Product A being able to produce a document that Product B can consume and use as expected certainly qualifies. Also, Eliot's point is well taken - there is interoperable content and interoperable systems. 

So I have no objection at all to the notion that *if* you can produce conforming DITA content. My point for the statement of use is that the qualification in the definition is that the statement is to a fact "... included multiple independent implementations" not to a concept "... can support interoperation." So, e.g., if you tested your implementation using DITA content produced by someone else, as far as I'm concerned, you can say 'included multiple independent..." 

That is the nuance I'm pointing out.


Best regards,


-----Original Message-----
From: docbook-tc@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:docbook-tc@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Kosek, Jiri (LNG-HBE)
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 8:37 AM
To: Norman Walsh; docbook-tc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [docbook-tc] 5.1 next steps


I can probably get such SoU from LexisNexis representative. Although DocBook is not company standard, some people use it for documentation on some projects. Do we have some draft of such SoU?

Many thanks in advance,


-----Original Message-----

From: docbook-tc@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:docbook-tc@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Norman Walsh

Sent: 16 March 2016 15:27

To: docbook-tc@lists.oasis-open.org

Subject: [docbook-tc] 5.1 next steps

Hi folks,

I asked Chet about SoUs. They don’t have to be organizational members, but if they are, we need to get the Primary Rep to confirm. So I think we can probably craft three amongst us. It’d be nice to get an organizational member, though.

For the independent implementation question, there’s no defined meaning. If we think we have demonstrated interoperability, then we can say so, otherwise we can’t. Roughly. My guess is we can demonstrate interoperability.

                                        Be seeing you,



Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>      | To create a little flower is the

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.oasis-2Dopen.org_docbook_&d=CwIGaQ&c=P3aKjizb3qsxp0SERaL2sw&r=YQWdLfM9mekBOdoMmoBdn9RgyqIHrveGolBbb4_uGWQ&m=o9IV5UvQFLxK6cgLWEkPrx60uylCerCBx8GapoNjGU4&s=FaioPwV1H9ROH8vhvXB-Luq6tXWiGs1nf6sjnkEYaXE&e=  | labour of ages.--Blake Chair, DocBook Technical Committee |


LexisNexis is a trading name of REED ELSEVIER (UK) LIMITED - Registered office - 1-3 STRAND, LONDON WC2N 5JR

Registered in England - Company No. 02746621

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