OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC

  • 1.  Release Management Domain: Must apply to maps as well as topics

    Posted 03-08-2014 21:55
    Proposal 13102 as written says: "enables content workers to log comments and metadata at the topic level when changes are made." The implicit restriction to topics is not necessary: there's no reason not to allow revision history within maps and no technical reason to not use it within maps (that is, <metadata>, the specialization base of <change-historylist>, is allowed within <topicmeta>, so the domain is inherently allowable within maps). I take this to be a simple oversight on the part of the original proposers who were focused on topic-specific use cases. I can't see any reason not to allow the domain within maps and can think of times when I would want to use it in maps. Does the TC object to adjusting the spec language to explicitly allow use of the domain within maps (which also implies integrating the domain in all non-base map types in addition to the non-base topic types already indicated in the proposal). Cheers, Eliot ————— Eliot Kimber, Owner Contrext, LLC http://contrext.com


  • 2.  Re: [dita] Release Management Domain: Must apply to maps as well as topics

    Posted 03-09-2014 01:30
    I for one would not object to the TC's finding this to be a logical and straightforward bug fix. -- Don On 3/8/2014 11:45 AM, Eliot Kimber wrote: Proposal 13102 as written says: enables content workers to log comments and metadata at the topic level when changes are made. The implicit restriction to topics is not necessary: there's no reason not to allow revision history within maps and no technical reason to not use it within maps (that is, <metadata>, the specialization base of <change-historylist>, is allowed within <topicmeta>, so the domain is inherently allowable within maps). I take this to be a simple oversight on the part of the original proposers who were focused on topic-specific use cases. I can't see any reason not to allow the domain within maps and can think of times when I would want to use it in maps. Does the TC object to adjusting the spec language to explicitly allow use of the domain within maps (which also implies integrating the domain in all non-base map types in addition to the non-base topic types already indicated in the proposal). Cheers, Eliot ————— Eliot Kimber, Owner Contrext, LLC http://contrext.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- Don R. Day Co-Founder, ContelligenceGroup.com Chair Emeritus, OASIS DITA Technical Committee LinkedIn: donrday    Twitter: @donrday About.me: Don R. Day    Skype: don.r.day Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? --T.S. Eliot


  • 3.  Re: [dita] Release Management Domain: Must apply to maps as well as topics

    Posted 03-09-2014 05:14
    Title: [dita] Release Management Domain: Must apply to maps as well as topics Sounds reasonable to me. --Scott Sent from my iPhone On Mar 8, 2014, at 2:55 PM, Eliot Kimber < ekimber@contrext.com > wrote:









    Proposal 13102 as written says:

    enables content workers to log comments and metadata at the topic level
    when changes are made.

    The implicit restriction to topics is not necessary: there's no reason not
    to allow revision history within maps and no technical reason to not use
    it within maps (that is, <metadata>, the specialization base of
    <change-historylist>, is allowed within <topicmeta>, so the domain is
    inherently allowable within maps).

    I take this to be a simple oversight on the part of the original proposers
    who were focused on topic-specific use cases. I can't see any reason not
    to allow the domain within maps and can think of times when I would want
    to use it in maps.

    Does the TC object to adjusting the spec language to explicitly allow use
    of the domain within maps (which also implies integrating the domain in
    all non-base map types in addition to the non-base topic types already
    indicated in the proposal).

    Cheers,

    Eliot

    —————
    Eliot Kimber, Owner
    Contrext, LLC
    http://contrext.com




    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
    generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
    https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

    ______________________________________________________________________
    This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
    ______________________________________________________________________







  • 4.  Re: [dita] Release Management Domain: Must apply to maps as well as topics

    Posted 03-09-2014 16:16
    Title: [dita] Release Management Domain: Must apply to maps as well as topics We need to hear from Tom Cihak. Sent from my iPad JoAnn Hackos Comtech Services Inc 710 Kipling Street Suite 400 Lakewood CO 80215   CIDM will be hosting the Content Management Strategies/DITA North America conference in April 2013.  On Mar 8, 2014, at 9:14 PM, "Hudson, Scott" < Scott.Hudson@schneider-electric.com > wrote: Sounds reasonable to me. --Scott Sent from my iPhone On Mar 8, 2014, at 2:55 PM, "Eliot Kimber" < ekimber@contrext.com > wrote: Proposal 13102 as written says: "enables content workers to log comments and metadata at the topic level when changes are made." The implicit restriction to topics is not necessary: there's no reason not to allow revision history within maps and no technical reason to not use it within maps (that is, <metadata>, the specialization base of <change-historylist>, is allowed within <topicmeta>, so the domain is inherently allowable within maps). I take this to be a simple oversight on the part of the original proposers who were focused on topic-specific use cases. I can't see any reason not to allow the domain within maps and can think of times when I would want to use it in maps. Does the TC object to adjusting the spec language to explicitly allow use of the domain within maps (which also implies integrating the domain in all non-base map types in addition to the non-base topic types already indicated in the proposal). Cheers, Eliot ————— Eliot Kimber, Owner Contrext, LLC http://contrext.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. ______________________________________________________________________


  • 5.  RE: [dita] Release Management Domain: Must apply to maps as well as topics

    Posted 03-12-2014 15:10
    Title: [dita] Release Management Domain: Must apply to maps as well as topics Hi Folks.   Yes, including the change domain in a map was absolutely intended. Here is an excerpt from the original draft in the wiki:   “This section details the proposed markup modifications.   1) create a new "changehistory" domain that can be integrated by map and topic shells   2) re-factor bookmap.mod to specify some elements in a separate domain (so this can be used by bookmap).   3) specify required and optional processing expectations”   Good catch, Eliot.   Also note that we predicted changes required to bookmap. I don’t recall whether the SC included this work in the proposal or determined that it was unnecessary. I can do some research if needed.     -seth   From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of JoAnn Hackos Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 11:16 AM To: Hudson, Scott Cc: Eliot Kimber; dita Subject: Re: [dita] Release Management Domain: Must apply to maps as well as topics   We need to hear from Tom Cihak. Sent from my iPad JoAnn Hackos Comtech Services Inc 710 Kipling Street Suite 400 Lakewood CO 80215     CIDM will be hosting the Content Management Strategies/DITA North America conference in April 2013.  On Mar 8, 2014, at 9:14 PM, "Hudson, Scott" < Scott.Hudson@schneider-electric.com > wrote: Sounds reasonable to me. --Scott Sent from my iPhone On Mar 8, 2014, at 2:55 PM, "Eliot Kimber" < ekimber@contrext.com > wrote: Proposal 13102 as written says: "enables content workers to log comments and metadata at the topic level when changes are made." The implicit restriction to topics is not necessary: there's no reason not to allow revision history within maps and no technical reason to not use it within maps (that is, <metadata>, the specialization base of <change-historylist>, is allowed within <topicmeta>, so the domain is inherently allowable within maps). I take this to be a simple oversight on the part of the original proposers who were focused on topic-specific use cases. I can't see any reason not to allow the domain within maps and can think of times when I would want to use it in maps. Does the TC object to adjusting the spec language to explicitly allow use of the domain within maps (which also implies integrating the domain in all non-base map types in addition to the non-base topic types already indicated in the proposal). Cheers, Eliot ————— Eliot Kimber, Owner Contrext, LLC http://contrext.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. ______________________________________________________________________