dita — archive
RE: [dita] Groups - Simple glossary for DITA 1.1 (issue 14A) (Issue14a.html) uploaded
MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->dita message
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Groups - Simple glossary for DITA 1.1 (issue 14A) (Issue14a.html) uploaded
- From: Erik Hennum <[email protected]>
- To: "Chris Wong" <[email protected]>
- Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:07:32 -0700
Hi, Chris:
Good to meet you as well (there ain't nothing like the real thing) though a pity that, as usual, the discussions happen on the run.
About building on the simple glossary in DITA 1.1 for more robust support of terminology concerns in DITA 1.2...
I'd suggest that, fundamentally, a glossary entry defines a key concept and associates it with a preferred label. From that perspective, glossary, taxonomy, and terminology concerns overlap as different uses of the same definition.
Rather than having to maintain a separate definition for each use, an adopter should be able to maintain one definition with many uses. (Consistent with the principle of separating presentation and content or, more generally, application and content.)
For example, if someone needs to identify the part-of-speech for the terms in their glossary definitions as an aid to guiding translation of those terms, they should have the option to do so in the DITA glossary definition instead of being forced to maintain a separate external definition for the term.
In other words an adopter should have the option to:
- Add terminological or conceptual detail to their glossary definition as needed for their taxonomy and terminology processing requirements.
- Integrate concepts and terminology maintained in DITA with concepts and terminology maintained outside of DITA
- Maintain concepts and terminology in DITA that are used for purposes other than published glossaries.
On the specifics of leveraging TBX / TMF standards for the DITA 1.2 glossary, we might consider three alternatives:
- Nesting via foreign / unknown
- Reference to an external object (in passing, validating Paul Prescod's insight about foreign being an inline object) in a terminology definition format
- Model interoperability on a subset of terminology properties so we can transform the processable terminology definition
One tricky part would be avoiding property overlap with terminology standards and conceptual standards like SKOS.
Makes sense?
Erik Hennum
[email protected]
[email protected]>">"Chris Wong" <[email protected]>
04/07/2006 01:02 PM |
|
Hi Erik. I'm glad to finally meet you in person at CMS2006. We talked
briefly about this, and I was wondering if you could elaborate on the
list the relationship between the glossary proposal and the existing
data-oriented TBX/TMF standard(s) that you referenced in the proposal. I
imagine there is a difference between a narrative-oriented standard like
DITA and something more data-oriented like TBX, and I'm wondering if
there is a way for them to complement each other.
Chris