Craeg K Strong wrote:
> In a nutshell, you would have a relatively small "core" set of
> constructs, and then each dialect/usage
> (such as article, book, review, resume, business letter, journal entry,
> meeting minutes, role description, design pattern,
> slideshow presentation, brochure, etc. etc) would be defined by its own
> stand-alone schema/DTD files which
> would *include* the appropriate core pieces.
I can see two orthogonal concepts here:
The one is more concerned about the form ('article' vs. 'book' vs. 'slides')
while the other is about domain-specific vocabularies ('business letter'
vs. 'design pattern').
I'm only talking about the domain-specific vocabularies when suggesting
a modular / extensible approach. It's an interesting question, though, how
this other dimension (for which I still lack a term) relates to this.
How could a user possibly choose vocabularies ("I'd like to write a book
about our in-house software development process" vs. "I'd like to make a
slideshow about this and that analysis model" etc.)
Regards,
Stefan
