Hi, Alan.
Just to check -- How this is related to the open TC action item
for the four of us (me, you, Carlos, and Robert Anderson) to meet,
collaboratively edit three topics, and discuss best approaches for
LwDITA and DITA spec alignment?
Is this prep work on your and Carlos' part? If so, I think it
does a good job of elucidating the following:
Assessment of work effort for LwDITA spec editors
Difficulties in pursuing an approach of classic reuse between
the LwDITA and DITA 2.0 specs
Emergent requirements for LwDITA SC and LwDITA spec editors
LwDITA spec editors want to use LwDITA topics for the LwDITA
spec. (Do the LwDITA spec editors also want topics that store
any elements intended for reuse between the two specifications
to be LwDITA?)
LwDITA spec editors do not want to refer to elements (for
example, the "<shortdesc> element") but to components
(for example, the "short description component").
I think key work moving forward is the following:
Statement of the requirements for alignment
between LwDITA and DITA 2.0 spec. (If we focus on reuse, we lose
the primary business requirement: that there must be alignment
between the two specifications.)
Exploration of different approaches for making that alignment
happen.
Assessment of the work effort for all the
stakeholders: LwDITA spec editors, DITA 2.0 spec
editors, and reviewers of the two specifications.
Best,
Kris
Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
www.eberleinconsulting.com
+1 919 622-1501; kriseberlein (skype)
On 4/28/2019 4:59 PM, Alan Houser
wrote:
Colleagues,
Carlos and I have completed the exercise of drafting three
lightweight DITA component reference topics (shortdesc, data,
xref) with the goal of reusing DITA 2.0 content as much as
possible. Our topics and analysis are here --
https://github.com/ahouser/LwDITA_DITA2.0_POC .
We can discuss tomorrow during the LwDITA SC call, should Carlos
deem this worthy of a spot on the agenda. :-)
-Alan
