OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

docstandards-interop-tech message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [docstandards-interop-tech] Re: About UOML

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,


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

"Alex Wang" <dlwang@sursen.com>

03/30/2007 12:45 PM

Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
RE: [docstandards-interop-tech] Re: About UOML

UOML is no longer a storage format standard, it is an operation
interface standard. UOML is equivalent to "SQL" for unstructured
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.


-----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

"Wang Donglin" <dlwang@sursen.com>
03/30/2007 06:16 AM Please respond to

ToMichael Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "Scott Hudson"
cc"mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org" <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>,
<docstandards-interop-tech@lists.oasis-open.org>, "Dee Schur"
SubjectAbout UOML

Hi all,
UOML provide effective interoperability between different document
format. Before start a new TC, one need know more about UOML.


>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
>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
>to mark up documentation in a platform-independent format.
>organizations need to collaborate and share content with other
>organizations. As a result, XML interoperability between these
>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
>participating standard formats to the framework; and requirements on
>participating standards to improve interoperability.
>Best regards,
>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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> meeting - I'd like to set up a series of telecons to discuss plans
>> this year and review some new work by Flatirons on an
>> 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:
>For additional commands, e-mail:

fn:Scott Hudson
org:Flatirons Solutions
adr:Suite 200;;4747 Table Mesa Drive ;Boulder;CO;80305;USA

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]