RE: [dita] DITA goes Nuclear?

As a member of the DITA Adoption 
TC, I think the Adoption TC would be quite interested in tracking DITA 
specializations, formally or informally, in the industry at large.  It 
could also host the information at dita.xml.org.

Regards,

Scott Tsao $BAbThT"(B
Information 
Architect - Associate Technical Fellow
The Boeing Company 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ogden, Jeff 
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, 
November 06, 2008 9:18 AM
To: Eliot Kimber; dita
Subject: RE: [dita] DITA 
goes Nuclear?

Eliot, I agree with the comments from both of your e-mails 
on this topic.

Is there a good place for people and organizations to 
informally share new specializations?  Part of the DITA area on 
xml.org?  That might be a way to encourage sharing of DITA specializations 
that are not formally standardized. It might be a good way to share early 
versions of new specializations before they become standardized as 
well.

If the specializations don't need to be formally standardized, 
would the DITA Adoption TC be a better forum for encouraging this sort of thing 
than the DITA TC with its focus on standards development?

   
-Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eliot Kimber 
[mailto:]
> Sent: 
Thursday, November 06, 2008 12:05 PM
> To: dita
> Subject: Re: 
[dita] DITA goes Nuclear?
>
> On 11/4/08 5:01 PM, "Eliot Kimber" 
<> wrote:
>
> > On 11/4/08 3:10 PM, 
"Robert D Anderson" <> wrote:
> >
> 
>> So - is there anybody on the TC interested in working on a
> 
specialization
> >> for the nuclear industry? If so, we can set up a 
subcommittee to
start
> work
> >> based on what has already 
been done. If so, please send a note
briefly
> >> describing your 
interest level (observer vs active participant). If
> you'd
> 
>> rather not send directly to the list at this point, you can send 
to
me
> and
> >> I'll collect responses; if you do that, 
please also copy Don Day,
as
> I'll
> >> be offline some of 
the next week and want to be sure I don't miss
any
> >> 
notes.
> >
> > While I'm sure such a specialization is quite 
valuable and it's
exciting
> to
> > see this type of activity 
happening, I worry that we are starting to
set
> a
> > 
precedent by which every community of interest that might find DITA
> 
useful
> > wants to be a subcommittee.
> >
> > I 
don't think that's either necessary or productive in the long run.
> DITA 
is
> > expressly designed to enable unilateral extension that does not 
need
to
> be
> > coordinated with the base standard in order 
to be both reliably
> > interchangeable and potentially useful as a 
standard in its own
right.
> >
> > There's absolutely no 
reason that something like a nuclear industry
> > specialization 
couldn't be developed as a completely separate effort
> within
> 
> whatever standards community serves the nuclear power 
industry.
>
> Michael Priestly pointed out privately that there 
might be communities
of
> interest that do not have an existing 
standards-making body that could
> host a DITA specialization standard, in 
which case the DITA TC would
> be a natural home.  I agree 
completely.
>
> My main intent is that it's clear to the DITA 
community at large that
> standardization within the DITA TC is not a 
*requirement* for
standardized
> DITA specialization, nor is 
standardization within OASIS a
requirement.
>
> For example, if 
the Air Transport Association wanted to define an
> 
aircraft-industry-specific set of specializations, it would make 
sense
for
> the ATA to host that activity--no need for it to be done 
under the TC
just
> because it happens to be a DITA-based XML 
application.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Eliot
>
> 
----
> Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, 
Inc.
> email:   <mailto:>
> office: 
610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368 2570 Boulevard of the
> Generals | Suite 
213 | Audubon, PA 19403 www.reallysi.com
> <http://www.reallysi.com>  | http://blog.reallysi.com
> <http://blog.reallysi.com> | 
www.rsuitecms.com
<http://www.rsuitecms.com>
>
>