Re: [xml-dev] Granularity

[Dan Vint <dvint@dvint.com>]

Depends, are you writing traditional manuals or are you using the new 
modular writing paradigm? Do you have a CMS or are you using the file 
system. Modular writing with DITA and S1000D seems to set the level 
of granularity at the topic and provides a mechanism and philosophy 
for managing the content and reuse.

Traditional manuals are more problematic and typically a chapter is 
about the best I have seen managed. Both for the number of files as 
well as having all the right content available to make it reasonable 
for a writer to make the required changes. IPB works well at the 
figure level, same with work cards at the task level. Trouble begins 
in trying to name the parts and then manage them.

The OO based CMs systems (Astoria) always touted the ability to 
randomly pick and choose where the author could work, while the 
relational based systems always required you to set the level of 
granularity and you paid a big price if you wanted to change it later.

..dan

At 04:14 PM 1/5/2012, Len Bullard wrote:
>When building XML systems, how do you choose the best granularity 
>for storing and retrieving fragments?
>
>Machine to machine
>
>Human to machine
>
>Human to human
>
>Part of the art is interpreting what branch and leaf combinations 
>best give a role/user the most copacetic view.  How do you 
>choose?  Does the user choose?
>
>The proportion of XML consumed and emitted by machines or humans is 
>not interesting,IME.   The cost and type of the value-add of the 
>humans consuming and emitting XML is.  In documents, this is 
>obvious.   Granularity.
>
>len

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Vint

Panoramic Photography
http://www.dvint.com

voice: 619-938-3610