[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] DITA goes Nuclear?
On 11/4/08 5:01 PM, "Eliot Kimber" <ekimber@reallysi.com> wrote: > On 11/4/08 3:10 PM, "Robert D Anderson" <robander@us.ibm.com> wrote: > >> So - is there anybody on the TC interested in working on a specialization >> for the nuclear industry? If so, we can set up a subcommittee to start work >> based on what has already been done. If so, please send a note briefly >> describing your interest level (observer vs active participant). If you'd >> rather not send directly to the list at this point, you can send to me and >> I'll collect responses; if you do that, please also copy Don Day, as I'll >> be offline some of the next week and want to be sure I don't miss any >> notes. > > While I'm sure such a specialization is quite valuable and it's exciting to > see this type of activity happening, I worry that we are starting to set a > precedent by which every community of interest that might find DITA useful > wants to be a subcommittee. > > I don't think that's either necessary or productive in the long run. DITA is > expressly designed to enable unilateral extension that does not need to be > coordinated with the base standard in order to be both reliably > interchangeable and potentially useful as a standard in its own right. > > There's absolutely no reason that something like a nuclear industry > specialization couldn't be developed as a completely separate effort within > whatever standards community serves the nuclear power industry. Michael Priestly pointed out privately that there might be communities of interest that do not have an existing standards-making body that could host a DITA specialization standard, in which case the DITA TC would be a natural home. I agree completely. My main intent is that it's clear to the DITA community at large that standardization within the DITA TC is not a *requirement* for standardized DITA specialization, nor is standardization within OASIS a requirement. For example, if the Air Transport Association wanted to define an aircraft-industry-specific set of specializations, it would make sense for the ATA to host that activity--no need for it to be done under the TC just because it happens to be a DITA-based XML application. Cheers, Eliot ---- Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc. email: ekimber@reallysi.com <mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com> office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368 2570 Boulevard of the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403 www.reallysi.com <http://www.reallysi.com> | http://blog.reallysi.com <http://blog.reallysi.com> | www.rsuitecms.com <http://www.rsuitecms.com>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]