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

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

Scott,

 

OK - but I don't see this happening any year soon if you are chasing raw XML tagging! ; -)

 

I understand the XML side of this - PDF allows you to embed XML, and their new format is entirely XML.

 

But notice - however that swirls in the wind - the iText functional set has remained the same for 4 years!!!

 

Lesson learned - its not the XML-syntax underneath - its the functions above that that count.

 

So to allow interoperability - I can write my implementation at the function level - and then handle whatever document types support my function library.

 

Then vendors just need to support your function library with adaptors to their native formats - and everyone is able to develop the business capabilities they need in a consistent way.

 

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: Scott Hudson <scott.hudson@flatironssolutions.com>
Date: Tue, April 10, 2007 11:34 am
To: docstandards-interop-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org

Michael, thank you for your responses and clarifications.
David and Dave, thank you for kicking off such a lively discussion!

We are really targeting the semantic interoperability of the content, not passing around chunks of existing content "as is" and assembled into new chunks. We want to make it easier for organizations to reuse content from other organizations that might be using different XML-based standards. We are specifically talking about exchange of document content, not data as well. There are plenty of data exchange formats and services out there. They are out of scope for this effort.

PDF is not really in scope for this effort either. We want to address interoperability of the source content - before the PDF is generated.

Because XHTML is an XML standard, it can be easily processed with XML-based tools and technologies. Working with PDF is more challenging in that regard.

We are not limited to ODF, DITA and DocBook either! We could easily bring in MS OOXML, TEI and other XML document standards as we move forward. Our initial attempt is to align those standards housed under the OASIS umbrella.

Best regards,

--Scott

Michael Priestley wrote:

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

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

04/10/2007 10:54 AM

To	Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
cc	docstandards-interop-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject	RE: [docstandards-interop-discuss] Clarifications / Scope of the intended work?

Dave / Michael,
 
This type of problem looks weak for automation - its one-off stuff - desktop editing focused.
 
And really this falls under what I'd set as 1) in my use cases - setting up MoU / CPA for the who, what, why rules of engagement.  Each vendor is going to provide tools within their editors to cope with these "imports" / cut-and-paste assembly - and alot of this is human facing.  Print, sign - return to sender.
 
Where I see the bigger need occuring is mass processing.   The type of processing I'd described involves 1,000's of documents daily - from 100's of submitters.
 
And more importantly - is applied AFTER the type of content cut-and-paste occurs that Michael described.  In fact that is EXACTLY the type of thing we see already for past year with these PDF submissions to eGov - people have got content from all kinds of places - scanners, PDF, Word docs, web pages - and then they assemble that - and output to the PDF for submission - this leaves all kinds of hidden traces and formatting issues that need to be resolved at the central receiving site.
 
And each agency has their own descreet rules and submission type - so scripting is essential to reduce the cost of doing this.
 
Fortunately for PDFs - the iText library has been evolved over the past 4 years to be wonderfully adept at this for purpose.  But right now you have to hand-code Java to be able to use iText - and its then static code that has to be re-compiled everytime a new document or rule change happens.
 
Of course what is needed is a more general purpose solution - learning from the iText experience - but that's where we come in...?!
 
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: "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, April 10, 2007 10:12 am
To: docstandards-interop-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org

On 10/04/07, Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com> wrote:

> - govt worker begins drafting a policy note in ODF with the subject
"the use of personal data received via email"
> - govt worker pulls in the text of the relevant statute, which is in
a DITA specialization
> - govt worker pulls in the legal disclaimer which must now be
included in every government email reply, from a different DITA
specialization
> - govt worker pulls in the instructions on how to include the text
of the disclaimer in emails, from documentation of the email
software written in DocBook

> - technical author 2, using DocBook, creates a customized version of
the email software documentation
> - and pulls in portions of the procedures web site, in the form of
DITA topics and ODF policy notes

OK, you've described the problem Michael. I hope we can all sympathise
with that!

Ignoring how, what do you see as a solution?

A means of 'integrating' n streams?
A way of reading n streams?
A means of generating .... something readable by all.... (lcd solution)

What class of solution is the goal please?


regards


--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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


--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

---

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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