AW: [dita] Revised content model options for #12011 - Generic Task Type

JoAnn, Bob,

 

As far as I remember, one of the purposes of the new 
generic process element is to enable specializer to create their own 
procedural specialization. The <process> element offers full flexibility 
for specialization, steps has already limitations.

 

This ensures that specializer will use <task> for 
any procedural specialized topics.

 

That was my understanding.

 

So I am a supporter of this 
proposal.

 

Best regards

 

Chris

 

SeicoDyne 
GmbH

Eichenstrasse 
16

CH-6015 
Reussbühl

Switzerland

Tel: +41 
41 534 66 97

Mob: +41 
78 790 66 97

Skype: seicodyne

 

www.seicodyne.com



 

Member of 
the DITA Technical Committee

Chairman 
of the DITA Machine Industry 
Subcommittee

 

Von: JoAnn Hackos 
[mailto:] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. 
November 2008 14:54
An: Bob Thomas; Michael Priestley
Cc: 

Betreff: RE: [dita] Revised content model 
options for #12011 - Generic Task Type

Hi Bob,

I tend to agree with you. I cannot find any rationale in 
the memos (so far) for the <process> alternative in task. I can't think of 
what it's supposed to handle that cannot already be handled by steps or 
steps-unordered. Haven't heard back from Alan Houser, however, who originally 
proposed it. 

 

Michael is also checking the email 
archives.

 

I'd be in favor of your proposal to chuck it at this point. 
I think it just creates confusion for authors.

 

Regards,

JoAnn

 

JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD
President
Comtech Services, 
Inc.
710 Kipling 
Street, Suite 400
Denver CO 80215
303-232-7586


 

 

From: Bob Thomas 
[mailto:] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 
1:02 PM
To: JoAnn Hackos; Michael Priestley
Cc: 

Subject: RE: [dita] Revised content model 
options for #12011 - Generic Task Type

  
  

    Please pardon my intrusion (I'm a TC observer). I have a 
      couple of objections to adding 'process' as specified in 
      #12011.

There really needs to be a rationale for this that includes 
      the semantic intent for 'process'. If allowing 'ol' and 'ul' inside of 
      'task' is the only rationale, then you would be better off adding 
      'section' to 'taskbody'. In any event, I would rather do 
      neither.

My other objection is a bit more fundamental. In 
      Information Mapping®, process is considered to be an information type just 
      like concept or task (procedure). While I do not think that the TC 
      necessarily needs to honor that distinction, it ought not to lightly 
      dismiss it. The notion of process as an information type suggests that a 
      section-level implementation of 'process' in DITA would be inappropriate. 
      If the TC goes ahead and implements 'process', as proposed in #12011, it 
      would preclude anybody else from creating a topic-level specialization for 
      process.

In the Information Mapping® compatible DTD that I worked 
      on 10 years ago, the content model for process was quite similar to the 
      one for procedure (task); the key difference being that a process had 
      'stage' elements rather than 'step' elements.

Regards,

Bob 
      Thomas 
President
Tagsmiths, LLC
+1 720 201 8260 

--- On Wed, 11/12/08, 
      Michael Priestley <> wrote:

      From: 
        Michael Priestley <>
Subject: RE: [dita] 
        Revised content model options for #12011 - Generic Task Type
To: 
        "JoAnn Hackos" <>
Cc: 
        
Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 11:00 
        AM

        

Hi JoAnn, 
        

The rationale below is to allow 
        <ol> and <ul> into taskbody. In other words, if someone 
        wants to create a task with a simple <ol> instead of the more 
        prescriptive <steps>, the <process> element allows them to 
        do so. 

Michael Priestley, 
        Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect 
        

http://dita.xml.org/blog/25 
        

        
          
          

            "JoAnn Hackos" 
              <> 
              
11/12/2008 12:06 PM 

            
              
                
                

                  
                    
To

                  Michael 
                    Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, 
                    <> 

                

                  
                    
cc

                  

                

                  
                    
Subject

                  RE: [dita] Revised content 
                    model options for #12011 - Generic Task 
                Type

              
                
                

                  

                  

Hi Michael, 
The email from Alan provides no rationale for the 
        <process>, just shows the syntax. Let me know if any of the 
        minutes show the rationale or any examples. I’ve written Alan but 
        haven’t received a response as yet. 
  
JoAnn 
  
JoAnn Hackos PhD 
President 
Comtech Services, Inc. 
 
Skype joannhackos 
        
  
        

        
        

From: Michael Priestley 
        [mailto:] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 
        9:22 AM
To: 
Subject: Fw: 
        [dita] Revised content model options for #12011 - Generic Task 
        Type 
  
        

Re discussion today about elements 
        in general task - found this, which provides a bit of background on 
        process - will check meeting minutes from around this time. 

Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member 
        (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect 
        

http://dita.xml.org/blog/25 
----- Forwarded by Michael 
        Priestley/Toronto/IBM on 11/11/2008 11:21 AM ----- 
        

        
          
          

            Alan Houser 
              <> 
              
12/11/2007 11:01 AM 

            

              
                
                

                  
                    
To

                   

                

                  
                    
cc

                    

                

                  
                    
Subject

                  [dita] Revised content 
                    model options for #12011 - Generic Task 
                Type

  
              

              
                
                

                    
                   

I submit this message for possible discussion at today's 
        
(11-December-2007) DITA TC meeting. Below is a summary of proposed 
        
content models that will support proposal #12011 -- Generic Task 
        Type. 
These content models are the result of recent discussion on 
        the DITA TC 
list.

-Alan
-------------
Summary:
- 
        Optional, repeatable <note> allowed before <cmd>
- 
        <taskbody> allows only a single <steps> element
- New 
        <process> element to permit <ol>/<ul> constructions in 
        <taskbody>

Proposed content 
        models:
taskbody:
(prereq?,
context?,
(steps | 
        steps-unordered | 
        process),
result?,
example?,
postreq?)
(Issue: allow 
        <section> before and after 
        <steps>?)

steps/steps-unordered:
Support <section> 
        between steps:
(section?, step)+

step:
Support optional, 
        repeatable <note> before cmd:
(note*,
cmd,
(info | 
        substeps | tutorialinfo | stepxmp |  choicetable | 
        choices)*,
stepresult?)
Issue: allow <itemgroup> in 
        <step>?

process:
(section?, (ol | ul))+
Issue: this 
        would allow multiple ol/ul 
        elements.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To 
        unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC 
        that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all 
        your TCs in 
        OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php