I think what we are proposing is similar to your example, where:
- User A writes content in DocBook - renders using xslt to XTX
format
- User B writes content in DITA - renders using xslt to XTX format
- User C writes content in ODF - renders using xslt to XTX format
- User D writes content in OOXML - renders using xslt to XTX format
XTX can then be rendered using xslt or imported back into each
standard as needed for exchanging content.
Users could also author in XTX if desired.
XTX can be processed by downstream XML systems.
--Scott
David RR Webber (XML) wrote:
Jim,
And I would caution that your example is ocean-boiling in the
making.
The simpler approach beckons - of specifying a format for
technical documents in XML - that avoids and side steps all the WSIYIG
baggage - and allows each tool maker to implement a simple template /
macro - that outputs to that format using an XSD master that defines
the "XTX" structure. Most all of them already have that capability.
Therefore I would re-draw your example as:
- User A writes content with macro in DocBook tool - stores as
XTX format
- User B writes content with macro in DITA tool - stores as DITA+XTX
format
- User C writes content with macro in ODF tool - stores as XTX format
- User D writes content with macro in OOXML tool - stores as XTX format
XTX can then be rendered using xslt or imported back into each
tool as needed.
XTX can be processed by downstream XML systems.
DW
"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)
--------
Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [docstandards-interop-discuss] proposed TC name
From: "Earley, Jim" <Jim.Earley@flatironssolutions.com>
Date: Tue, April 24, 2007 10:42 am
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>, "Peter F Brown"
<peter@pensive.eu>
Cc: "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>,
<docstandards-interop-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org>
All,
The problem space that we've identified here is focused around the
following type of
user story:
- User A writes content with DocBook
- User B writes content with DITA
- User C writes content with ODF
- User D writes content with OOXML
User A needs to leverage content from Users B, C, and D; User D must
share content from
User A and B.
Since each of these "Narrative" XML "Documentation Standards" is
semantically different,
the idea is to provide a common interchange markup that enables each
of these standards
to write to and subsequently read from. Think "hub and spoke": the hub
is the common
interchage markup, each spoke is a particular structured markup
standard (and version),
like DocBook 4.4, DITA 1.0, or ODF 1.0
The basic premise is to mitigate the number of transformation
scenarios that would
otherwise be required to support interchange between these standards.
Additionally:
* Since each standard will continue to evolve, using a common
interchange format reduces
the number of transformation permutations required to enable
interchange with other
standards
* Other narrative XML grammars, like TEI, DocBook variants, or DITA
specializations
could take advantage of an interchange format to enable content
sharing with other XML
grammars.
I have written about this topic with several posts to my blog:
http://jims-thoughtspot.blogspot.com/search/label/interoperability
I hope this helps clarify the direction of this proposed TC.
Cheers,
Jim
================
Jim Earley
XML Developer/Consultant
Flatirons Solutions
4747 Table Mesa Drive
Boulder, CO 80301
Voice: 303.542.2156
Fax: 303.544.0522
Cell: 303.898.7193
Yahoo.IM: jmearley
MSN.IM: jearley22@hotmail.com
jim.earley@flatironssolutions.com
-----Original Message-----
From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 7:47 AM
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 <http://www.xmlbystealth.net/>
www.xmlsummerschool.com <http://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 <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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
|