I am still having problems with the semantics. Here is why. According to common usage a task is a piece of work that gets assigned to somebody (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/task). To accomplish a task, that person may decide to follow a procedure (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/procedure). This procedure is a process (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/process) that the person can perform. All tasks, except for impossible ones, have one or more procedures that people can follow to achieve the desired results. All procedures are processes that people follow to accomplish tasks. However, not all processes are procedures; for example, photosynthesis is a
process and not a procedure.
I am not priggish enough to ask that we rename 'task' to 'procedure,' the current semantics are close enough given the colloquial usage for task among technical communicators. However, I would like to avoid contorting DITA's semantics by suggesting that 'process' is somehow subordinate to 'task' when clearly it is the other way around. It might be convenient to add process to generalized task, but the semantics would be counter intuitive.
Regards,
Bob Thomas
President
Tagsmiths, LLC
+1 720 201 8260
--- On Sun, 11/16/08, SeicoDyne DITA <> wrote:
From: SeicoDyne DITA <>
Subject: AW: [dita] Revised content model options for #12011 - Generic Task Type
To: "'JoAnn Hackos'"
<>, "'Bob Thomas'" <>, "'Michael Priestley'" <>
Cc:
Date: Sunday, November 16, 2008, 1:31 PM
JoAnn, Bob,
As far as I remember, one of the purposes of the new
generic process element is to enable specializer to create their own
procedural specialization. The <process> element offers full flexibility
for specialization, steps has already limitations.
This ensures that specializer will use <task> for
any procedural specialized topics.
That was my understanding.
So I am a supporter of this
proposal.
Best regards
Chris
SeicoDyne
GmbH
Eichenstrasse
16
CH-6015
Reussbühl
Switzerland
Tel: +41
41 534 66 97
Mob: +41
78 790 66 97
Skype: seicodyne
www.seicodyne.com
Member of
the DITA Technical Committee
Chairman
of the DITA Machine Industry
Subcommittee
Von: JoAnn Hackos
[mailto:]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13.
November 2008 14:54
An: Bob Thomas; Michael Priestley
Cc:
Betreff: RE: [dita] Revised content model
options for #12011 - Generic Task Type
Hi Bob,
I tend to agree with you. I cannot find any rationale in
the memos (so far) for the <process> alternative in task. I can't think of
what it's supposed to handle that cannot already be handled by steps or
steps-unordered. Haven't heard back from Alan Houser, however, who originally
proposed it.
Michael is also checking the email
archives.
I'd be in favor of your proposal to chuck it at this point.
I think it just creates confusion for authors.
Regards,
JoAnn
JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD
President
Comtech Services,
Inc.
710 Kipling
Street, Suite 400
Denver CO 80215
303-232-7586
From: Bob Thomas
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008
1:02 PM
To: JoAnn Hackos; Michael Priestley
Cc:
Subject: RE: [dita] Revised content model
options for #12011 - Generic Task Type
Please pardon my intrusion (I'm a TC observer). I have a
couple of objections to adding 'process' as specified in
#12011.
There really needs to be a rationale for this that includes
the semantic intent for 'process'. If allowing 'ol' and 'ul' inside of
'task' is the only rationale, then you would be better off adding
'section' to 'taskbody'. In any event, I would rather do
neither.
My other objection is a bit more fundamental. In
Information Mapping®, process is considered to be an information type just
like concept or task (procedure). While I do not think that the TC
necessarily needs to honor that distinction, it ought not to lightly
dismiss it. The notion of process as an information type suggests that a
section-level implementation of 'process' in DITA would be inappropriate.
If the TC goes ahead and implements 'process', as proposed in #12011, it
would preclude anybody else from creating a topic-level specialization for
process.
In the Information Mapping® compatible DTD that I worked
on 10 years ago, the content model for process was quite similar to the
one for procedure (task); the key difference being that a process had
'stage' elements rather than 'step' elements.
Regards,
Bob
Thomas
President
Tagsmiths, LLC
+1 720 201 8260
--- On Wed, 11/12/08,
Michael Priestley <> wrote:
From:
Michael Priestley <>
Subject: RE: [dita]
Revised content model options for #12011 - Generic Task Type
To:
"JoAnn Hackos" <>
Cc:
Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 11:00
AM
Hi JoAnn,
The rationale below is to allow
<ol> and <ul> into taskbody. In other words, if someone
wants to create a task with a simple <ol> instead of the more
prescriptive <steps>, the <process> element allows them to
do so.
Michael Priestley,
Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
"JoAnn Hackos"
<>
11/12/2008 12:06 PM
To
Michael
Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA,
<>
cc
Subject
RE: [dita] Revised content
model options for #12011 - Generic Task
Type
Hi Michael,
The email from Alan provides no rationale for the
<process>, just shows the syntax. Let me know if any of the
minutes show the rationale or any examples. I’ve written Alan but
haven’t received a response as yet.
JoAnn
JoAnn Hackos PhD
President
Comtech Services, Inc.
Skype joannhackos
From: Michael Priestley
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008
9:22 AM
To:
Subject: Fw:
[dita] Revised content model options for #12011 - Generic Task
Type
Re discussion today about elements
in general task - found this, which provides a bit of background on
process - will check meeting minutes from around this time.
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member
(STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
----- Forwarded by Michael
Priestley/Toronto/IBM on 11/11/2008 11:21 AM -----
Alan Houser
<>
12/11/2007 11:01 AM
To
cc
Subject
[dita] Revised content
model options for #12011 - Generic Task
Type
I submit this message for possible discussion at today's
(11-December-2007) DITA TC meeting. Below is a summary of proposed
content models that will support proposal #12011 -- Generic Task
Type.
These content models are the result of recent discussion on
the DITA TC
list.
-Alan
-------------
Summary:
-
Optional, repeatable <note> allowed before <cmd>
-
<taskbody> allows only a single <steps> element
- New
<process> element to permit <ol>/<ul> constructions in
<taskbody>
Proposed content
models:
taskbody:
(prereq?,
context?,
(steps |
steps-unordered |
process),
result?,
example?,
postreq?)
(Issue: allow
<section> before and after
<steps>?)
steps/steps-unordered:
Support <section>
between steps:
(section?, step)+
step:
Support optional,
repeatable <note> before cmd:
(note*,
cmd,
(info |
substeps | tutorialinfo | stepxmp | choicetable |
choices)*,
stepresult?)
Issue: allow <itemgroup> in
<step>?
process:
(section?, (ol | ul))+
Issue: this
would allow multiple ol/ul
elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC
that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all
your TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
