Re: [docbook] Ruminations on the future of DocBook

[Stefan Seefeld <seefeld@sympatico.ca>]

Jeff Biss wrote:

> Another problem is how we look at the world. For example there is the 
> discussion about a <task> element. I usually use the word "process" 
> (high level) rather than "task" in contradistinction to "procedure" (low 
> level). This may lead to excessive elements or not realizing one's needs 
> are already met. This may be a poor example because there is no 
> <process> or <task> element at the moment but there may be very closely 
> related elements that could have used the same term. This happens a lot 
> in programming languages such as "method" versus "function". Perhaps a 
> careful generalization could be done to accommodate similar 
> functionality but different terms (jargon).

Yeah, I would very much like to see a discussion of all the different
domains docbook can be applied to ('use cases'), together with domain
specific vocabularies. Based on this one may be able to either unify
these vocabularies, or create a 'standard' vocabulary with a set of
'profiles'. I think that this is what we are doing informally right now
when arguing over task vs. process vs. procedure.

Just to throw in some examples:

* technical books / articles

* working documents in software development (requirement analysis,
   architecture specs, design specs, API references)

* assignments (from homework up to project management)

* etc.

Best regards,
		Stefan