Evaluation of the subject scheme review

It was very interesting to evaluate the comments made in the review
    of the subject scheme material. Several points became very clear:

    

      
        
It was the first time that most people had read this
          content, and probably the first time that it has been
          reviewed. 

        

        
The draft 1.3 topics contained some examples that illustrate
          processor behavior that is either not described normatively or
          described in inadequate detail. I'm working on this, but will
          definitely need help. There also are limits to what we can do
          and get DITA 1.3 out this year.

        
The draft 1.3 topics focus primarily on controlled values
          and do not discuss (much) what can be done with taxonomic
          subjects, especially in conjunction with the classification
          domain. I think we'll just need to accept this as a
          shortcoming for 1.3.

        
Keys and key references function differently in the context
          of subjectScheme maps. This is especially evident in the
          following situations, and I think we must clarify our
          collective, TC stance about the expected processing of @keyref
          in the context of a subject scheme:

        

        
          
Using <schemeref> to extend an enumeration of
            controlled values or to broaden subject categories

          
Using an addressing attribute to link to a detailed
            explanation of a subject from a <subjectdef> element.
            Here I think one must use @href; using @keyref would open up
            the possibility of lots of circular processing.

        
        
If subject scheme maps have special rules for processing
          @keyref, do they also have special rules for key scopes? Are
          key scopes even valid for subject scheme maps?

        

        
        
      
      
Back story:

      

      
        
There was one subjectScheme topic in the 1.2 Architectural

            Spec, and then lots of material in the Language
            Reference examples. For 1.3, I broke the content into
          multiple topics, and moved material out of the (non-normative)
          examples in the Language Reference.

        
The original spec material had been taken from proposals
          drafted by Erik Hennum (IBM), who left IBM before 1.2 was
          released. Erik's tendency was to define through example, 
          which is how so many of the rules and processor expectations
          ended up in the Language Reference examples.

      
      
-- 

        Best,

        Kris

        

        Kristen James Eberlein

        Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee

        Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting

        www.eberleinconsulting.com

        +1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype)