OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC

 View Only

RE: [dita] Re: Comparison between DITA and S1000D

  • 1.  RE: [dita] Re: Comparison between DITA and S1000D

    Posted 08-23-2004 21:22
     MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    dita message

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


    Subject: RE: [dita] Re: Comparison between DITA and S1000D


    Eliot,
    
    Are you suggesting a decoupling of DITA into two parts:
    1) Topic-oriented vocabulary
    2) Specialization-based mechanism
    
    If that is the case, may I recast John's enumeration of the key
    distinguishing characteristics of DITA as follows:
    1) For topic-oriented vocabulary, one could potentially use existing
    DITA information type & domain to model 
       all of the S1000D:
       a) Information types (e.g., Description, Procedural, Maintenance
    schedules, Fault Isolation, 
          Crew/operators, and IPD) 
       b) Domain vocabularies (e.g., loading/off-loading procedures,
    munitions descriptions, safety, emergency, 
          etc.)
    2) For specialization-based mechanism, one could reap the following
    benefits:
       a) Specialization with a fallback
       b) Processing reuse
    
    As John said: "Modeling all of the details of S1000D with DITA topic and
    domain specializations would be a 
    large task," are you suggesting that one could potentially reap the
    benefits of the second without doing
    the first?
    
    Am I interpreting your comments correctly?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Scott
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Eliot Kimber [mailto:ekimber@innodata-isogen.com] 
    Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 2:12 PM
    To: john_hunt@us.ibm.com
    Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org; Tsao, Scott; ehunnum@us.ibm.com
    Subject: Re: [dita] Re: Comparison between DITA and S1000D
    
    
    john_hunt@us.ibm.com wrote:
    
    > DITA, however, has several key distinguishing characteristics, 
    > compared
    > with S1000D:
    > 
    > 1) Information type specialization.
    
    Rather than comparing DITA and S1000D at the element type level, it 
    might be more productive to simply retrofit the DITA class mechanism to 
    S1000D--this would provide much of the unique value of DITA compared to 
    S1000D (since both provide comparable content structures) and could be 
    done without affecting any existing applications or document instances.
    
    This is one reason I pushed for breaking the specialization mechanism 
    out as a separate specification--it has tremendous value independent of 
    the value of DITA's topic-based vocabulary and could be usefully applied
    
    to any information types.
    
    That is, there is a general requirement for some sort of architecture 
    mechanism, at least for technical documentation (if not for all XML 
    applications), and DITA provides just such a mechanism in a form that is
    
    both well adapted for the XML Web-based world, that is proven in 
    practice, and that requires minimal extra effort to use and implement.
    
    Cheers,
    
    Eliot
    -- 
    W. Eliot Kimber
    Professional Services
    Innodata Isogen
    9390 Research Blvd, #410
    Austin, TX 78759
    (512) 372-8122
    
    eliot@innodata-isogen.com
    www.innodata-isogen.com
    


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