docstandards-interop-discuss message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [docstandards-interop-discuss] proposed TC name
- From: Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>
- To: "David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:44:13 -0400
A few clarifications from my point of
view:
- I believe standards such as legalXML
should be in scope. We already have three standards groups interested,
specifically ODF, DITA, and Docbook, that operate at different levels of
specificity, and DITA in particular is quite capable of being as specific
as LegalXML or more so, through its specialization mechanisms.
- that said, we don't need to include
every possible XML document standard under the sun in our initial launch,
we can start small and grow. One of the reasons to pick DITA, ODF, and
DocBook initially is because they are all OASIS standards that are within
our scope. LegalXML would be welcome, and there has been some discussion
of S1000D joining as well.
- "document interchange" as
a goal is different from "document standards interoperability".
If all we wanted was document interchange, we could just all agree to use
DITA :-) But if we have different groups using different standards,
then it's really good for those users if the standards bodies themselves
have already figured out an interoperability story.
- a key implication of the previous
paragraph is that we need participants from those standards bodies, not
just participants who use the standards. We cannot drive interoperability
between document standards without participation from those who define
the standards.
- the interoperability story may include
a common "hub" interchange format (not something authored directly),
as well as requirements on the participating standards to define common
architectural attributes to identify versions, customizations, specializations
etc. - but that's putting the cart before the horse. First we need to agree
on the goal, before we can work to agreement on the route.
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>
04/24/2007 10:18 AM
|
To
| Peter F Brown <peter@pensive.eu>
|
cc
| Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>,
docstandards-interop-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
|
Subject
| RE: [docstandards-interop-discuss] proposed
TC name |
|
Peter,
I think your use case is the antithesis here! The
typical user is NOT the average person noodling using MS Word for WSYIWG!!
Instead there is some business task / service being performed associated
with the content.
Notice that xhtml provides an established control set
here of typical page content components - bulleted lists, tables, graphics,
header, title, bookmarks, links - that go a long way to reducing the choices
down to a common set.
But we need some limited extensions for things like ToC,
footers and such that are missing from the pure browser metaphor.
Instead of general users - you have business staff preparing
technical documents - here's what I envision as a partial list:
1) Software documentation
2) Engineering documentation - aircraft, vehicles, engines,
et al
3) Hardware and firmware documentation
4) User guides for technical equipment
5) Short legal document / contract preparation (1 to 3
page stuff)
6) Wiki style content submissions
"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [docstandards-interop-discuss] proposed TC name
From: "Peter F Brown" <peter@pensive.eu>
Date: Tue, April 24, 2007 10:04 am
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>
Cc: "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>,
<docstandards-interop-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org>
David:
I appreciate the clarifications
– I missed the early exchanges on the list.
I still can’t get my
head around “a simple XML format for documentation” – what is the scope
of (intended) use? Could someone give, say, half a dozen examples of document
types that might be covered? Given that most people use 2-3% of the functionality
of any word processing package, but everyone uses a *different*
2-3%, it might be difficult identifying the sub-set, that’s my worry…
Regards,
Peter
From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
Sent: 24 April 2007 09:47
To: Peter F Brown
Cc: Dave Pawson; docstandards-interop-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [docstandards-interop-discuss] proposed TC name
Peter,
We had this big discussion two weeks ago. The current
scope text is misleading. It is my understanding that the whole idea
is to NOT get immersed in the OOXML / ODF / PDF quagmire - but instead
to provide a simple XML format for documentation purposes - envisioned
as a blend of DITA + xhtml + extensions and an XSD.
Notice that content authoring tools already support use
of XSD templates to instruct the creation of conforming documents - including
MS Word, Corel, ODF, and then specialized editors such as XMetal. So
published templates can then be used in a variety of tools to produce the
XML content instances themselves.
This would allow the EU to publish templates for documents
that would work in any any desktop tool supporting it.
In essence this sidesteps the current generation of syntaxes
- which are focused much on WYSIWYG content production - rather than content
semantic and formatting alignment.
Given all that - a simple TC name should elucidate the
focus here - and not lead people into thinking the problem being solved
is some bigger uber-solution.
Thanks, DW
"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [docstandards-interop-discuss] proposed TC name
From: "Peter F Brown" <peter@pensive.eu>
Date: Tue, April 24, 2007 9:39 am
To: "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>,
<docstandards-interop-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org>
In a European context, "documentation" would
nearly always equate to
"technical documentation" and be understood
as things like DocBook and
not, say, legislative texts, business documents, etc.
But:
- when does a legislative document get covered by
LegalXML?
- when does a business document get covered by UBL?
We can easily get lost: it should be more specific
than any "XML
document" but less specific than particular "XML
application"
documents.
I understood the scope to be about interoperability
between "generic"
documents generated by "all-purpose" word-processing
software, be that
in ODF, DocBook, etc - but that begs the more fundamental
question:
why isn't the biggest document production platform
included, that
generates OOXML? The scope of the proposed TC needs
to be serious in
addressing this dimension, or it will be a fool's
errand.
Has anyone compared the scope with the new activity
in the European
Commission on "Open Document Exchange Formats"
(!= ODF)? Could this be
a collaborative effort? Is their title more useful?
I think the proposed TC needs to be MUCH clearer about
its scope
before it'll get our vote.
Peter
-------------
Peter F Brown
Founder, Pensive.eu
Co-Editor, OASIS SOA Reference Model
Lecturer at XML Summer School
---
Personal:
+43 676 610 0250
http://public.xdi.org/=Peter.Brown
www.XMLbyStealth.net
www.xmlsummerschool.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Pawson [mailto:dave.pawson@gmail.com]
Sent: 23 April 2007 14:32
To: docstandards-interop-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [docstandards-interop-discuss] proposed
TC name
On 23/04/07, David RR Webber (XML) <david@drrw.info>
wrote:
>
> I actually quite like Eduardo's:
>
> Documentation Standards Interoperability
TC.
>
> "Documentation" is vague enough IMHO
- and people will likewise need
to read the charter for explicit clarifications
I like the terseness and yes, the generality.
All it means is we need clarification early on in
the web pages /
actual standard
to scope the work, which is no bad thing IMHO.
> I'm not
sure I'd go into machine v human readable - since that
distinction is rapidly being eroded by smart machine
agents.
Yes, I find that (potentially) too constraining. Most
will stay one
side of their own
boundaries, but that doesn't mean that the other side
is out of scope?
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
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.7/771 - Release
Date:
21/04/2007 11:56
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.10/774 -
Release Date:
23/04/2007 17:26
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.10/774 - Release Date: 23/04/2007
17:26
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.10/774 - Release Date: 23/04/2007
17:26
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]