RE: [docstandards-interop-discuss] Clarifications / Scope of the intended work?

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

Michael,

 

OK got it - I realized after I hit send - you were talking about a scripted automated assembly processor... I'm even more liking the function set approach to this - where each function is purposed to deliver and support some needed business capability - as you are outlining.

 

DW

"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [docstandards-interop-discuss] Clarifications / Scope of
the intended work?
From: Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, April 10, 2007 11:15 am
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>
Cc: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>,
docstandards-interop-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org


Ah, here may be part of the confusion: we are talking about potentially thousands of topics/documents - we purposefully picked a simple scenario for the sake of understanding, but certainly the problem scales to e.g. a component provider using one standard providing docs for the components to a solution provider using another standard - solutions with hundreds of components, each with hundreds of topics, scale quickly in complexity.

We are also not talking about cut and paste. This is reuse by reference.

See my other note for a discussion of the degrees of interoperability involved.

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