[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: vocabulary module [was: results from recent DITA 1.2 terminology discussions]
For the "no further direct dependencies" semantics of the word "atomic", how about adding the word "completely"? The uniquely-named collection of element type and attribute type declarations that completely defines a map type, topic type, or domain. Or is there some complication hidden in your words "further" and "direct"? Further: Are there some direct dependencies and we're saying there are no additional ones? Direct: are there indirect dependencies? > -----Original Message----- > From: Eliot Kimber [mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:34 AM > To: Bruce Nevin (bnevin); tself@hyperwrite.com; dita > Subject: Re: vocabulary module [was: results from recent DITA > 1.2 terminology discussions] > > On 11/18/09 9:29 AM, "Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <bnevin@cisco.com> wrote: > > > Could you clarify the phrase "unit of element type or > attribute type > > declaration" please? > > Do you mean "unit of ... declarations"? Would "set of ... > declarations" > > be equivalent? > > "set of" is OK. > > I was trying to convey that atomic nature of a vocabulary > module, that is, that a vocabulary module has no further > direct dependencies. Clearly I didn't get that across. > > >> For a given map type, > >> topic type, or domain, there is exactly one vocabulary module that > >> defines it. > > > > Are there any vocabulary modules that do not define a map > type, topic > > type, or domain? > > No, that is the complete set of vocabulary modules. > > > If not, could we say something like this? > > > > The uniquely-named collection of element type and attribute type > > declarations that defines a map type, topic type, or domain. > > > >> An abstract module may be implemented by any number of different > >> constraint mechanisms (DTDs, XSDs, etc.). > >> However, for a given constraint mechanism, there should be at most > >> one authoritative declaration of the module. > > > > We already said it is unique. ("The ... collection ... that defines" > > says there's just one.) We already know that anything in > DITA may be > > implemented by DTD or XSD. If there's a gotcha to warn > about, maybe it > > should be stated more explicitly elsewhere. > > > > Could the definition thus be reduced to that one sentence? > > Works for me. > > Cheers, > > E. > > > -- > Eliot Kimber > Senior Solutions Architect > "Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together" > Main: 610.631.6770 > www.reallysi.com > www.rsuitecms.com > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]