We were planning to work with concept,
task and reference. Concept, task and reference are key in numerous types of
business documents. It would be an incredible amount of work to go back to
topic and recreate concept, task and reference. We are working towards making a
recommendation of “simplification” to these so that it is easier
for other industries to specialize from them.
I also agree with Bruce that they should
remain as part of the base architectural specification. And I agree with JoAnn
that bookmap is relevant to multiple industries, eg pharma could use it for
submissions, we just finished working with a book publisher and we used it
there, it would make sense for medical devices etc.
We would be very much appreciative if
these could be restored to the base arch spec.
Ann
From: Kristen James Eberlein [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009
6:25 PM
To: JoAnn Hackos
Cc: Bruce
Nevin (bnevin);
Subject: Re: [dita] problem with
packaging of glossaries
I am curious to know what the Enterprise Business
Documents folks are planning. Are they planning to specialize from topic, or
are they planning to work with concept, task, and reference?
Kris
JoAnn Hackos wrote:
I am in favor of Bruce’s second
recommendation. What is the problem with stating that concept, task, and
reference are key specializations in the DITA standard? Why should they be
relegated to technical communication only? I just don’t see the point of
that.
Even if there is a All DITA package,
we’re not including information about task, concept, and reference
information types in the base architectural specification, but only in the arch
spec for technical communication.
I’ve never been in favor of this
split and would strongly prefer that we include task, concept, reference, and
glossary in the base architectural specification. That would leave us with the
machine industry specialization, which is, of course, extremely relevant for
many outside the machine industry, and the various domains (software, ui,
programming, machine industry, safety hazard). Also bookmap. Why is bookmap
considered relevant only for technical communication. It’s probably less
relevant there and more relevant for DocBook aficionados.
Since I’m writing the tech comm arch
spec content and the topic content, I’d be very happy to restore task,
concept, reference, and glossary to the base arch spec. I could include a
statement that these may primarily relate to product documentation although I
really don’t think that’s true.
JoAnn
JoAnn
Hackos
PhD
President
Comtech Services, Inc.
Skype joannhackos
From: Bruce Nevin (bnevin) [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009
11:24 AM
To:
Subject: [dita] problem with
packaging of glossaries
This came
up in the spec authoring meeting today.
The
problem: <glossentry> is specialized from <concept>. <task>,
<concept>, and <reference> are in the TechDocs package. This forces
<glossentry> etc. to be restricted to the TD package. But
non-TechDocs folks need glossaries, and support for them should be in the base.
Two
solutions:
Accept this. Present it as an unfortunate fait accompli
for 1.2 -- if you want a glossary, you have to use the TD package (or
specialize your own).
Move <task>, <concept>, and <reference> back
into the base, sans TD-specific domain specializations, and include those
specializations in the TD package. Present this as an interim step toward
simplified topics being developed by the BusDocs SC.
Comment?
Action?
/Bruce
