Re: [docstandards-interop-discuss] Clarifications / Scope of the intendedwork?

[Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>]

Hi David,

The intent is to share document-oriented
content between organizations. For example, DocBook, ODF, or DITA content
- human-readable documents.

When two different organizations (let's
say company A and company B) adopt different document standards and then
find they need to share content, typically they have to do one of:
- migrate: one of the two companies
agrees to migrate their content to the standard used by the other company
- transform: create a transformation
path between the two kinds of content - which can be complicated by fundamental
differences between the standards, customization of the standards, and
evolution of the standards over time.
- adapt: find a lowest common denomenator
between the two standards, and both agree to transform to, and conform
to, that common denomenator

The purpose of the proposed TC is to
identify the common denomenator, and to create mechanisms for identifying
differences and commonalities within customized versions of the standards.
So: we want to define ways to interoperate at the level of standards definition,
so that when people at the level of content creation hit an interoperability
problem, there's a clearly defined path for solving it. IE, we want a standardized
solution to cross-standards problems - specifically those to do with sharing
of content in document-oriented standards such as DocBook, ODF, and DITA.

Re:
>Obviously there you can provide templates also and
content headers, classifications and structure and 
>content hinting - but it is of necessity a model where
the content is much more relaxed and freeform

There's still a lot of room for structure, and for differences
in degrees/kinds of structure. A DocBook procedure and a DITA task both
provide a lot more structure than an ordered list, for example, and a DITA
APIRef document provides even more - there is a continuum of structure/semantics
within the document-based world, with relatively free-form standards like
ODF or generic DITA at one end, DocBook or mid-specialized DITA in the
middle, and LegalXML, S1000D, or further-specialized DITA at the other
end. 

>So - I believe you are discussing formalizing mechanisms
for the latter - PDF, xdoc, odp and other rich document formats using XML?

Specifically we want to formalize mechanisms
for exchanging content between organizations or applications that are using
different XML document standards - so not PDF per se, but ODF, DITA, and
DocBook, for a start, and hopefully others as we progress.

Michael Priestley
IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25

"David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>

04/09/2007 08:52 PM

To	docstandards-interop-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
Subject	[docstandards-interop-discuss] Clarifications / Scope of the intended work?

Folks,
 
I'm just reviewing this - please see my comments and notes
below,
 
Thanks, DW
 
"Increasingly, organizations need to collaborate
and share content with
other organizations. As a result, XML interoperability between these standards
is critical."
 
>>> Increasingly? I think the collaborative world
has been upon us for the past several years here already!
>>> "between these standards" does
not make sense - I think you mean "between these organizations own
standards.."
 
These standards, however, have not been designed with
cross-standard interoperability in mind. 
 
>>> Again this is not clear - I presume you mean
the organizations own practice and use of XML - not XML persay?
 
The Doc Standards Interoperability TC is intended to address
the development
and documentation of scenarios for cross-standard content sharing; a
specification for an interoperability framework, including mappings from
participating
standard formats to the framework; and requirements on participating standards

to improve interoperability. 
 
>>> This mostly works - the last part of the
sentence after "framework;" - on participating standards"
>>> should this be participating in/with standards?
Or the participating should "developing" instead?
 
Then the last but MOST crucial question - what kind of
content sharing are we talking about here?
 
If it is business transactional XML - then obviously OASIS
has ongoing relevant work such as CAM and BCM, where frameworks clearly
can be carved out for use cases - and templates and patterns provided there
in tandem with that work.
 
However - I suspect you are referring to document exchanges
of free formatted informational content such as legal documents, bid letters,
technical manuals, informational documents, technical procedures, catalogues,
brochures, literature and other non-transactional content exchanges?
 
Obviously there you can provide templates also and content
headers, classifications and structure and content hinting - but it is
of necessity a model where the content is much more relaxed and freeform.
 
The focus in this latter case is then on knowledge mining,
knowledge representation and semantic alignment within the documents themselves.
 
 
Also typically these documents can be sent in support
of transactional XML - e.g. as in with a Grant Application Submission -
you have the transactional XML that contains details of the submitting
organization, budget, duration and fixed content items, and then attached
are supporting PDF documents - letters of recommendation, project definition
and approach, prior related work, published work, facilitaties, and so
on.
 
So - I believe you are discussing formalizing mechanisms
for the latter - PDF, xdoc, odp and other rich document formats using XML?
 
Thanks, DW

"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docstandards-interop-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docstandards-interop-discuss-help@lists.oasis-open.org