To echo my concern about UOML, the standards we are dealing with are
primarily structured markup, not unstructured. From the charter, it
appears that UOML will retain and focus on preserving layout-based
information for presenting the document in print. I think what we are
proposing is oriented towards preserving the semantics rather than
presentation.
From what I've seen at UOML.org, it appears to require a proprietary
platform to process documents in and out of UOML using SEP. Correct me
if I'm wrong, but I thought I had read somewhere that UOML is additive,
in that you cannot modify or change the content underneath. If that is
the case, I'm not sure that meets our use cases, either.
Best regards,
--Scott
Michael Priestley wrote:
Hi Alex,
As some background, the standards
currently
involved (with the arguable exception of ODF) are all structured
document
type standards.
We have demonstrated strong
interoperability
and reuse within the DITA family of document types, and basic
interoperability
support in the DITA Open Toolkit (at http://dita-ot.sourceforge.net)
between
DocBook and DITA. We are trying to abstract the problem to a higher
level
by proposing a framework for interoperability. This might be at the
level
of shared attributes across the standards for expressing reuse intent
and
constraints, and at the level of a common target format with the fewest
possible constraints to be used for interchange (possibly based on
XHTML).
So I'm still not sure how UOML
relates
to the proposed technical committee. Are you saying we would use it to
select the content to reuse? Given that we are talking about XML
document
standards to begin with, this seems like high overhead - we can already
reuse content today using a variety of standard-specific reuse
mechanisms,
we're just trying to make those mechanisms operate consistently.
Michael Priestley
IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
UOML is no longer a storage format standard, it is
an operation
interface standard. UOML is equivalent to "SQL" for unstructured
information.
Per my study, it is very difficult (or even impossible) to make two
different formats fully compatible. No matter how many efforts you make,
you can only get closer to the goal, but may never reach it.
UOML is an alternative solution, which deals with layout-based documents
and treats them just like papers. An UOML application works like a pen,
which can be used to edit any UOML document in the same way as a pen is
used to write on any paper.
In the basical mode, an UOML appliction can only append new content to
a
document, can't modify previous content. This mode is same as paper. If
one can work with paper, one can work under this mode.
In your scenario, the govt worker should use an office suite which based
on OpenOffice and support UOML, like RedOffice, to creat the policy
note. For second step, he require an application which support DITA and
UOML, to add new content to the previous document. So does 3rh step and
so on.
-Alex
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Priestley [mailto:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 7:37 PM
To: dlwang@sursen.com
Cc: docstandards-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [docstandards-interop-tech] Re: About UOML
Can you point us to some introductory material? Even better, could you
tell us how UOML would fit into the reuse scenario we've been working
to, which is:
- govt worker begins drafting a policy note in ODF about 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 1, using DITA, creates an internal policy and
procedures website
- and pulls in text from the DocBook email software documentation
- and pulls in the legal text from a DITA specialization
- and pulls in the relevant section of the policy note, written in ODF
- 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
Michael Priestley
IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
"Wang Donglin" <dlwang@sursen.com>
03/30/2007 06:16 AM Please respond to
dlwang@sursen.com
ToMichael Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "Scott Hudson"
<scott.hudson@flatironssolutions.com>
cc"mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org" <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>,
"docstandards-interop-tech@lists."
<docstandards-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org>, "Dee Schur"
<dee.schur@oasis-open.org>
SubjectAbout UOML
Hi all,
UOML provide effective interoperability between different document
format. Before start a new TC, one need know more about UOML.
-Alex
Chair
OASIS UOML TC
>Thanks Michael! Here is another suggested wording:
>
>One of the benefits that XML touted from early in it's inception
was
>that of platform independence. This independence greatly helped in
its
>widespread adoption, yet brought with it the unintended consequence
of
a
>proliferation of standardized XML grammars. Document standards such
as
>DITA (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/dita), DocBook
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/docbook), and ODF
>(http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office) all address a similar
need
>to mark up documentation in a platform-independent format.
Increasingly,
>organizations need to collaborate and share content with other
>organizations. As a result, XML interoperability between these
standards
>is critical. These standards, however, have not been designed with
>cross-standard interoperability in mind.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.
>
>Best regards,
>
>--Scott
>
>Michael Priestley wrote:
>>
>> Last time we met we agreed that we would initiate the
formation
of a
>> technical committee, which starts with the formation of a
formal
>> public discussion list. I did submit the request, but Mary had
>> suggested an elaborated statement of scope which I haven't
provided
yet.
>>
>> Here's an attempt at expanded information:
>>
>> Document standards such as DITA
>> (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/dita), DocBook
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/docbook), and ODF
>> (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office) are designed to
enable
>> standardized content that can be used across applications that
conform
>> to the standard. However, this reuse does not typically cross
the
>> boundaries of the standards, because the standards are not
usually
>> designed with cross-standard interoperability in mind. Members
of the
>> DITA, DocBook, and ODF TCs are forming a technical committee
to
>> address this problem. The work of the technical committee is
likely
to
>> include 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.
>>
>> Is that ok with folks on the current list?
>>
>> Let's meet this Thursday to discuss taking the message back to
our
>> respective TCs. My apologies for letting the proposal lag.
>>
>> Michael Priestley
>> IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
>> mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
>> http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
>>
>>
>> *"Scott Hudson" <scott.hudson@flatironssolutions.com>*
>>
>> 03/29/2007 12:46 PM
>>
>>
>> To
>> "Dee
Schur" <dee.schur@oasis-open.org>
>> cc
>> Michael
Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA,
>> <docstandards-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org>,
>> <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
>> Subject
>> Re:
[docstandards-interop-tech] Meeting next week?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I was going to ask the same question! Do we have everything we
need
to
>> initiate the formation of a TC? Are we going to set up
regularly
>> scheduled meetings?
>>
>> --Scott
>>
>> Dee Schur wrote:
>> Just wondered what was going on with this group? What do we
need
to
do
>> to create the discussion list?
>> Thanks,
>> Dee
>>
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Michael Priestley [_mailto:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com_] *
>> Sent:* Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:27 PM*
>> To:* _docstandards-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org_
>> <mailto:docstandards-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org>*
>> Subject:* [docstandards-interop-tech] Meeting next week?
>>
>>
>> Please let me know what days/times would be available for a
continuing
>> meeting - I'd like to set up a series of telecons to discuss
plans
for
>> this year and review some new work by Flatirons on an
interoperability
>> framework.
>>
>> My default preference is for Thursday 2 PM ET
>>
>> Michael Priestley
>> IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead_
>> __mpriestl@ca.ibm.com_ <mailto:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>_
>> __http://dita.xml.org/blog/25_
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/697 - Release
Date:
>> 2/22/2007 11:55 AM
>>
>> --
>> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.4/702 - Release
Date:
>> 2/25/2007 3:16 PM
>>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
docstandards-interop-tech-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
>For additional commands, e-mail:
docstandards-interop-tech-help@lists.oasis-open.org
|