"Ogden, Jeff" <jogden@ptc.com>

08/20/2007 08:50 AM

To	Erik Hennum/Oakland/IBM@IBMUS
cc	<dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject	RE: [dita] 12026 Specialize glossary entry and definition elements

I was wondering if this should be an extension of the existing glossary topic rather than a new specialization? Or perhaps that is what is planned and I just didn’t follow the description correctly.

-Jeff

From: Erik Hennum [mailto:ehennum@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 9:58 AM
To: Grosso, Paul
Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [dita] 12026 Specialize glossary entry and definition elements

Hi, Paul:

The original design for the glossary specialization includes optional elements for linguistic concerns (the part of speech, etc) and semantic concerns (the scope of the sense, etc). We simplified to cover only publishing concerns in support of book enablement for DITA 1.1; however, that was with the expectation that we would revisit the ancillary concerns in DITA 1.2 so that adopters who need to manage those aspects of their content vocabulary can but others don't have to.

Hoping that clarifies,

Erik Hennum
ehennum@us.ibm.com

"Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote on 08/15/2007 07:17:28 AM:

> Rereading
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/15140/Issue14.html
> I'm not understanding what this is about and why the
> new glossary stuff we put into DITA 1.1 doesn't suffice.

References:
- RE: [dita] 12026 Specialize glossary entry and definition elements
  - From: "Ogden, Jeff" <jogden@ptc.com>