[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Groups - Minutes, 17 March 2009 (DITA_TC_meeting_17_March_2009.txt) uploaded
If there are changes that you want made, please let me know as soon as possible. ------------------------------------------------------- OASIS DITA Technical Committee Minutes Tuesday, 17 March 2009 ------------------------------------------------------- Minutes recorded by Kristen James Eberlein. 1. ROLL CALL Quorum is present. 2. Approve minutes from previous business meetings: * http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200903/msg00027.html (10 March 2009) Motion made to approve minutes; seconded by Stan Doherty; motion carried by acclamation. 3. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS * OASIS DITA Translation Committee JoAnn Hackos reported that the subcommittee is currently making good progress on a best practices document for glossary. Action: Don Day to speak to John Hunt about having a report from the OASIS DITA Learning Content Subcommittee next week. 4. ACTION ITEMS FROM DATA TYPES AND DEFAULT VALUES No progress on these items. Action: Michael Priestley will send send background information to Gershon about previous discussions with OASIS about the possibility of using the dita.xml.org site to comment on the language and architectural specifications. 5. ITEM: Cross-references to Topicheads and Implicit Title-only Topics * http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200901/msg00039.html (Eliot, others) Don Day asked whether we needed additional list discussion before bringing this to resolution. Elliot commented that he and Michael Priestley needed to come to agreement on some points, including clarification about what are the implications for the chunk attribute. Action: Elliot Kimber will post something to the list. 6. ITEM: Hazard Statement Width * http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200902/msg00029.html (Grosso and ongoing) * http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200903/msg00008.html (Kravogel suggested actions) Deferred to a meeting when Chris Kravogel is present. 7. ITEM: Mapref attribute resolution * http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200903/msg00007.html (Anderson) Don Day asked what are 1.2 items and what are 1.3 items? Robert Anderson restated the tenor of the last discussion: That an attribute set on a map reference is equivalent to overriding that value on the target of the map reference, that it cascades within that target map as it normally cascades. One clarification: If you have a map reference that has a scope or toc or linking attribute, is that the same as a map reference that inherits that value within a map? For example, a topicref with toc=no that contains a nested map reference, is that the same as setting toc=no on the map reference? Robert thinks that the answer is yes, but wants to verify it. Anything beyond clarifying the language in the 1.2 spec, such as additional use cases, would be 1.3-level work. Action: Robert Anderson will write a clear summary and send it to the list. 8. New ITEM: DITA Help Technologies Guide (DITA Help SC item for TC review) * http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita-help/documents.php (Doherty) Stan Doherty has replied to the list with information about a new preface to the document. Kris Eberlein was unable to attend the Adoption Committee. Stan Doherty made a brief pitch, explaining why the TC should vote on the guide. He clarified that the subcommittee is not looking for advice about publication or distribution, but is looking for the TC to vote on the guide. There are three reasons why the TC should approve the guide: 1) Demonstrate to the broader community that the TC is serious about outreach to people using DITA for help 2) Lay the foundation in the 1.2 framework for specializations and customizations intended for DITA 1.3 3) Want the support of the TC; the subcommittee is working in an area that is not traditional DITA country. The subcommittee has made an assessment, gone to conferences, talked with people, and has created enthusiasm around the topic; they want to capitalize on that energy. The guide is not perfect -- it is a first version -- but it is a very good effort and congruent with our charter. As such, Stan and the subcommittee ask that the TC vote today on the guide. Don Day opened the floor for general discussion on the guide and Stan's comments. Su-Laine Yeo commented that the order of the technologies mentioned in the guide is not alphabetical nor is it sorted by level of adoption. She asked why Arbortext Digital Publisher was listed first? Stan Doherty stated that he was not aware of a reason for placing Arbortext Digital Publisher first, reminded people that of the 15 tools discussed in the guide 13 are open source or free, only 2 are commercial, and that he is willing to go back to the committee and reorder the map, if there is a perception issue. Su-Laine went on record stating that she believes that there is a perception issue associated with listing Arbortext Digital Publisher first. It is the most commercial technology, not yet released, and not yet in use by adopters. She thinks that it should be listed last. Stan Doherty stated again that he would be glad to go back to the subcommittee and consider the sequence of the map. Don Day asked whether Su-Laine had a suggestion for a fair way to order the technologies in the guide. Su-Laine suggested listing technologies in the order of popularity of adoption, or listing the open source tools first and the commercial tools last. Don Day commented that popularity changes, and asked whether alphabetical order would be acceptable as a simple and unequivocal sorting order. Su-Laine Yeo stated that she would find it acceptable if the tools were divided into open source and commercial sections (open source to be listed first), and then alphabetized within those sections. Su-Laine stated that there are issues with trademarks, for example, XML is marked with (TM). Stan Doherty commented that all the trademarks have been reviewed by OASIS. About two months ago he sent the whole thing to Mary McRae, and Mary passed it on to a couple of people internally who said that there wasn't a formal process, and that if the subcommittee had done its best, that was due diligence. The general consensus of TC members on the call was that trademarks need not be marked with symbols in running text; that it is adequate to list them on a single page. Don Day commented that Stan has done due diligence, and that we shouldn't make this document adhere to higher standards than those applied to previous documents. Stan offered to remove all trademark symbols from the running text and send the list of trademarks to the list for additional review. Motion made, seconded, and approved by acclamation to make this standard editoral policy for TC documents. Action: Stan to remove trademark symbols from the running text, list trademarks in one place, reorder the tools, and add the preface. Don Day asked whether people on the call had any additional comments for Stan. Su-Laine commented that Just Systems has many concerns about the scalability of the model -- people getting together and coming up with consensus statements about technologies. She stated that she understood that their had been one consultant and one product vendor in the group so far, and that several other product vendors have asked to be involved. Just Systems has serious concerns about the ethical and legal issues that are likely to arise if you try to get direct competitors together in a room and evaluate descriptions of each other's products. OASIS works very well for direct competitors to get together and come to agreement about things that are of mutual interest to their customers -- on many issues, it's quite obvious to all vendors what is in the best interest of the DITA community -- but that's quite different from talking about how to describe each other's products. Stan Doherty responded that this is a future and contingency issue that can be dealt with down the road, when and if it occurs. He suggested that Just Systems get involved in the subcommittee if they have interest. He urged the TC to move forward and approve the document. Su-Laine asked whether there was a maintenance plan. Does the subcommittee plan to keep this document up-to-date? If so, what is the plan? Stan commented that the plan is listed in editorial preface, and that the subcommittee intends to update the document quarterly, if possible. Su-Laine stated that the potential problems relating to competitors getting in a room and talking about each others products (especially future products), reviewing these products, negotiating with each other about what will be said about the products is a large and significant issue. She is concerned with possible violations of anti-trust laws. If we do not have a model for dealing with this, we don't have a maintenance plan. Don Day suggested we table discussion on this issue for now, but wondered whether the way forward might entail having Su-Laine work with the subcommittee to establish policy for maintenance and avoidance of anti-trust issues. Su-Laine responded that she wants to get OASIS more involved. The guide is not the type of document that they are accustomed to publishing. X asked "In what way does this document or future incarnations of this document prevent additional competitors from entering the arena? That is what anti-trust is about." Su-Laine responded that the document itself does not prevent additional competitors from entering the arena, but that she is concerned about is the kinds of discussions that will be necessary in order to produce another version of this document that reviewed competitive products, where competitors would be reviewing each others' products. X replied that that is a different matter than anti-trust; that anti-trust has to do with a kabal freezing people out and setting prices. Su-Laine responded that anti-trust is anything that restricts fair competition and fair criticism of each other's products. Stan Doherty commented that final editorial control is with the subcommittee. Also, none of the pieces in the guide are about one competitor making comments about another competitor's products. The subcommittee set clear ground rules to prevent that from happening. The subcommittee has developed good guidelines and working patterns. Stan begged the TC to trust the subcommittee. X asked whether Su-Laine's concern has not with anti-trust but with disclosure of proprietary information. Su-Laine replied that anti-trust is when competitors get together and talk about what will be said about each others' products; then the potential for collusion with competitors arises. Don Day asked whether the next step might be to ensure objectivity of the subcommittee, perhaps by excluding vendors from participating in the subcommittee. Stan Doherty stated the subcommittee has talked about these issues. If Vendor A talks about vendor B, that's a problem. The subcommittee knows that. Vendor A comes in, does a demo, and then Vendor A writes it up. In the editorial process, everyone sees what others are writing about. He reiterated his plea to "Trust us and get involved." Michael Priestley stated that while he wants the document published, we need to have an answer prepared in case another company that is not on the TC and is not familiar with subcommittee guidelines decides to sue OASIS for collusion, because they were not involved, are losing market share, and decide it is a conspiracy. We need to protect everyone on the TC and their companies from law suits. We should take this to OASIS; legal issues are their responsibilities. Stan Doherty reminded the TC that the subcommittee is seeking approval from the TC. If it's the will of the TC to make approval pending on a legal review by OASIS, let's go ahead and vote to do so. He doesn't want this matter to continue in limbo. Stan is not confident that OASIS will care about this issue; this is outside of OASIS's comfort zone. When he approached Legal two months ago, he didn't hear much. He sent the guide to OASIS Legal and asked for help with copyrights, etc. He and the subcommittee were aware of these issues and attempted to engage OASIS about them months ago. X asked whether Stan or the subcommittee had explicitly asked OASIS about such issues as we have been discussing today; Stan replied that he had not. Actions: 1. Stan Doherty to schedule meeting with Mary McRae, OASIS legal contact, Stan, Tony Self, and Su-Laine Yeo to get explicit approval that it is OK for the subcommittee to publish the document and where. 2. Su-Laine Yeo to post any additional concerns to the list promptly Meeting adjourned. -- Kristen Eberlein The document named Minutes, 17 March 2009 (DITA_TC_meeting_17_March_2009.txt) has been submitted by Kristen Eberlein to the OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC document repository. Document Description: View Document Details: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=31777 Download Document: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/31777/DITA_TC_meeting_17_March_2009.txt PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for you, your email application may be breaking the link into two pieces. You may be able to copy and paste the entire link address into the address field of your web browser. -OASIS Open Administration
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]