dita — archive

[Eliot Kimber <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>]

The problem is that "implementation" does not have a crisp definition in the DITA context. I don't think there exists a DITA processor that is entirely self-contained and isolated such that it doesn't combine two or more separately implemented components. Also, "interoperation" is a bit fuzzy: there's interoperation of content (two separate systems operating on the same DITA docs) and interoperation of systems (one DITA-aware component communicating with another. So either we need a clearer definition of what implementation and interoperation mean in this context or recognize that *all* uses of DITA 1.3 inherently involve interoperation of multiple independent implementations. Cheers, E. ---- Eliot Kimber, Owner Contrext, LLC http://contrext.com On 8/20/15, 11:28 AM, "Tom Magliery" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of tom.magliery@justsystems.com> wrote: >Can I belabor this point a little bit? I am not sure I understand what is >really meant in general by this whole business of "interoperability with >multiple independent implementations". What would constitute ONE >"interoperation with an independent implementation"? > >If Kris uses XMetaL to edit a DITA 1.3 topic, then has her implementation >(a DITA topic) interoperated with my implementation (XMetaL)? Has mine >interoperated with hers? > >If yes to the above, then if Eliot ALSO uses XMetaL to edit a DITA topic, >is that then "multiple"? > >If XMetaL uses the DITA OT (a separate tool) to publish DITA 1.3 topics, >does that count as one of the above thingies? > >If I use XMetaL to open a DITA 1.3 topic that is stored in some CMS >repository, is that one of these thingies? If yes, is that still true if >the repository doesn't have any specific "implementation" of DITA 1.3 >except for having the 1.3 DTDs present for validation? > >mag > > >From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org [ mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org ] On >Behalf Of Chet Ensign >Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 9:16 AM >To: Kristen James Eberlein >Cc: DITA TC >Subject: Re: [dita] Take two: Eberlein Consulting statement of use > > >How about "... they interoperate with multiple independent >implementations." The requirement is "state whether the implementation >included..." In other words, not hypothetically but in fact >interoperability was demonstrated. Or else just say "The implementation >did not include interoperation of multiple independent implementations." >That is, interoperation with was not part of the implementation. > > >Just saying "all-inclusive edition" is good. > > > >/c > > > >On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Kristen James Eberlein ><kris@eberleinconsulting.com> wrote: >How does this look? If it meets your approval, it could be a good >template for all other companies that want to write a statement of use >concerning their shells/specializations/documents: > >"As the primary voting representative of Eberlein Consulting LLC to >OASIS, I endorse the following statement of use: > >Eberlein Consulting LLC has successfully used the DITA 1.3 Committee >Specification 01, approved 21 August 2015, in accordance with sections >4.1, "Conformance of DITA implementations," and section 4.2, "Conformance >of DITA documents" of the all-inclusive edition. The specialization and >constraint modules used by the Eberlein Consulting LLC implementation >include all DITA 1.3 architectural features; they support interoperation >with multiple independent implementations. > >DITA documents created by Eberlein Consulting LLC make particular use of >the following structures that were added to DITA 1.3: > >* XML mention domain >* Troubleshooting topic >* Troubleshooting additions to the task information type" > > >Best, >Kris > >Kristen James Eberlein >Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee >Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting >www.eberleinconsulting.com < http://www.eberleinconsulting.com > >+1 919 682-2290 <tel:%2B1%20919%20682-2290>; kriseberlein (skype) > >On 8/20/2015 11:47 AM, Chet Ensign wrote: > > >Well, first thought is that the language in the conformance clauses >section might be identical but what is in the spec is not. So if I said >that my implementation complies with all conformance clauses in section >4.0 of Part 1, that would be very different from me saying that it >conforms with all clauses in section 4.0 of Part 3. And if you don't say >which, how would I as an outside reviewer know? > > >Next, I'd go with '2015' not '2013' as the year. I speak from experience >- although in my case, it was a ballot so I got loads of "huhs" back from >the TC. > > > >Lastly, it does need to say something about did/did not include >interoperation with multiple independent implementations. The point there >being did your implementation demonstrate, in some way, successful >interoperation with other tools. > > > > > > > >On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Kristen James Eberlein ><kris@eberleinconsulting.com> wrote: >OK, let's see if I can write a statement of use for Eberlein Consulting >LLC that will satisfy the requirements that chet has outlined. Chet, >please review and let me know what might need to be modified. > >The Conformance statement is identical in all three editions that include >it; it is not present in Part 0:Overview. > >"Eberlein Consulting LLC has successfully used the DITA 1.3 Committee >Specification 01, approved 21 August 2013, in accordance with sections >4.1, "Conformance of DITA implementations," and section 4.2, "Conformance >of DITA documents. The specialization and constraint modules used by the >Eberlein Consulting LLC implementation include all DITA 1.3 architectural >features. > >DITA documents created by Eberlein Consulting LLC make particular use of >the following structures added to DITA 1.3: > >* XML mention domain >* Troubleshooting topic >* Troubleshooting additions to the task information type" > > > > >Best, >Kris > >Kristen James Eberlein >Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee >Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting >www.eberleinconsulting.com < http://www.eberleinconsulting.com > >+1 919 682-2290 <tel:%2B1%20919%20682-2290>; kriseberlein (skype) > >On 8/20/2015 10:34 AM, Chet Ensign wrote: > > >Hi folks, > > >It is great to see the statements of use coming in and with this level of >detail. This will certainly help when the membership vote for OS is >announced. > > > >However, I need some edits to what I have seen in order to comply with >the TC Process. The definition of 'statement of use' >( https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#dStatementUse ) >reads: > > > >"Statement of Use", with respect to a Committee Specification, is a >written statement that a party has successfully used or implemented that >specification in accordance with all or some of its conformance clauses >specified in Section 2.18, identifying those clauses that apply, and >stating whether its use included the interoperation of multiple >independent implementations. The Statement of Use must be made to a >specific version of the Committee Specification and must include the >Specification's approval date. ... When issued by an OASIS >Organizational Member, a Statement of Use must be endorsed by the >Organizational Member's Primary Representative. > > > > >So what you will need to do is: > > > >- Include the approval date which will be the date that the CS ballot >closes: 21 August 2015. > > > >- Regarding the conformance clauses, either state that the implementation >complies with "all" conformance clauses or list the clauses with which it >complies. Given that the DITA spec is divided into the 3 parts, I suggest >also saying whether it is with the clauses in part 3, part 2 or part 1 >(conforming to Part 1 or Part 3 could be very different things). > > > >In other words, say something like this: "... in accordance with all >conformance clauses in Part 3: All-Inclusive Edition, section 4.3 >Conformance of DITA processors. " > > > >- Include wording along the lines of "This implementation does <or 'does >not'> include interoperation with multiple independent implementations. " > > > >- Lastly, for OASIS organizational members, just get your primary rep to >send you an email that you forward on to the list or include with the >statement of use saying "As <organization>'s Primary Representative to >OASIS, I endorse this statement of use." > > > >Sorry to add to the work but as I say, these will be a help when it is >time for the OASIS vote. > > > >Let me know if you have any questions. > > > >Best, > > > >/chet > > > > > > > > > > > >On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Tom Magliery ><tom.magliery@justsystems.com> wrote: >JustSystems Canada, Inc. is successfully using and implementing Committee >Specification 01 of OASIS DITA Version 1.3 in accordance with the >relevant conformance clauses and consistently with the OASIS IPR Policy. > >Our implementation consists of support for DITA 1.3 in Version 10 of >XMetaL Author Enterprise, our XML editor software. Features now available >in XMetaL Author Enterprise 10 that were added or modified to support >DITA 1.3 include: > >- Editor display style sheets updated to include all DITA 1.3 element >types >- Key-related dialogs updated to provide functionality supporting scoped >keys >- Key-based reference checking updated to support scoped keys >- In-place display of keyref content supports scoped keys >- Ability to control which key scope is applied to a topic that is >referenced in multiple key scopes >- Updated Formatting toolbar with new highlight domain elements >(overline, line-through) >- Added/updated submenus for inserting elements from all domains (e.g. >Release Management, XML and Markup) >- Added/updated document templates including Troubleshooting topic type >- Added "trouble" to available choices for Note types >- Updated other areas of the Insert menu to reflect changes to DITA 1.3 >element types >- Added new DITA 1.3 domains to "show/hide domains" settings in user >preferences > >-- >Tom Magliery >XML Technology Specialist >JustSystems Canada, Inc. > > > > > > > > >-- > >/chet > ---------------- >Chet Ensign >Director of Standards Development and TC Administration >OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society > http://www.oasis-open.org > >Primary: +1 973-996-2298 <tel:%2B1%20973-996-2298> >Mobile: +1 201-341-1393 <tel:%2B1%20201-341-1393> > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To >unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > > > > > >-- > >/chet > ---------------- >Chet Ensign >Director of Standards Development and TC Administration >OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society > http://www.oasis-open.org > >Primary: +1 973-996-2298 <tel:%2B1%20973-996-2298> >Mobile: +1 201-341-1393 <tel:%2B1%20201-341-1393> > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To >unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > > > > > >-- > >/chet > ---------------- >Chet Ensign >Director of Standards Development and TC Administration >OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society > http://www.oasis-open.org > >Primary: +1 973-996-2298 >Mobile: +1 201-341-1393