Groups - DITA TC Meeting Minutes 11 December 2018 uploaded

[Nancy Harrison<nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com>]

        Submitter's message
        ActionItems:
- none added


=================================================
Minutes of the OASIS DITA TC
Tuesday, 11 December 2018
Recorded by Nancy Harrison
link to agenda for this meeting:	
https://wiki.OASIS-open.org/dita/PreviousAgendas


Attendance:
Robert Anderson, Deb Bissantz, Carsten Brennecke, Bill Burns, Stan Doherty, Kris Eberlein, Carlos Evia, Nancy Harrison, Alan Houser, Scott Hudson, Eliot Kimber, Tom Magliery, Chris Nitchie, Jim Tivy


Business
========
1. Roll call
        Regrets: Dawn Stevens 


2. Approve minutes from previous business meeting:
        04 December 2018: [no minutes available yet]


3. Announcements:
        New TC members: None 


4. Action items
        21 August 2018
            Kris & Robert: Perform the best edit of multimedia topics that they can do in time available; due 18 September 
        11 September 2018
            Kris: Review conversation with Joe Pairman, e-mails about metadata, and TC discussion in late 2017/early 2018; summarize to TC 
        30 October 2018:
            Kris: Submit request to publish committee note (COMPLETED)
            Kris: Open GitHub issue for committee note PDF issue regarding formatting (some URLs are not blue) on coverpage 
        13 November 2018
            Eliot: Test refactoring of grammar files
            Spec editors incorporate changes from DITAweb review 
- Kris; most of these are mine; I'll do my best to close them by end of year. Eliot, what about yours?  [Eliot hadn't yet joined call at that point, so no update.]


5. CMS/DITA NA 2019 conference
        Deadline for submissions extended to 15 December 2018
        Shall we have a DITA TC face-to-face meeting on the Sunday before the conference? 
[gen'l agreement]

  
6. Review of DITA 2.0 proposal deadlines
        https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DeadlinesDITA2.0 
Robert's updated proposal went out; Stan got it, is typing up his comments now.
Kris; most of the other proposals are queued up for 1st call in January.


7. dita-comment list
        noting a few limitations in my FrameMaker-to-DITA migration effort
            https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201812/msg00001.html (Chris Papademetrious, 07 December 2018) 
- Alan; I looked at his comments; do we open content models when we get comments like this? Should it always be possible to migrate content to DITA without modifying content?
- Kris; I don't see why his conversion script can't put required-cleanup where he needs it.
- Alsn; what about his bookmap issue?
- Robert; don't think we should twist models to accomodate that.
- Kris; we always bring up every dita-comment email for discussion; but it doesn't mean we'll do anything; we just want to have a good response for users who make them.
- Robert; I don't think we want to twist content models for this.
- Eliot; otoh, wrt the appendix issue, I have this requirement for a client right now. it's really common in publishing.
- Alan; should we be doing this for 2.0 bookmap?
- Eliot; I'd add it to that for sure, but it wouldn't break any content models.
- Kris; what's up for 2.0 bookmap is all stuff that doesn't break content models.  The 2nd thing to consider is whether we want o do this for 2.0.
- Alan; I'd be happy to respond to the comment writer.
- Kris; thx, let him know that 1. yes, there are problems with bookmap, but you need to acomodate the model, not other way around.
- Kris; and back to the question; do we need to consider this for 2.0?
- Nancy; will new 2.0 publications map we've discussed (not the bookmap fixes) incorporate the parts-for-appendices piece?
- Eliot; I would think so...
- Kris; we've had such little discussion of that, it's hard to know what it will be...
- Eliot; if we take D4P as a model, which I think we should, it already has that.
- Kris; I'm not surprised to hear you say that :-)
- Kris; how can we best spur thinking about the new pub. map for 2.0?
- Chris; someone has to be responsible, and I'm not volunteering...
- Robert; I agree with Chris
- Kris; at the end of the day, you're both right; what the TC delivers is always contingent on what TC members are willing to take ownership of.
- Alan; can we please restate the issue?
- Kris; we've talked about a new pub map, but we haven't gone beyond that.
- Eliot; a more complete pub map has been my intent for a long time...  I think it's mine to stand in; the current limitation is that I'm trying to get other things done so I can work on this.
- Kris; the other thing is we've wanted a pub amp that would be amenable to publishing in many different channels, not just 'book' publishing. That's one of the challenges; something broad enough for multi-channel, but specific enough to use for actual books.
- Eliot; I've thought about having a 'web-pub' map as well as a 'book-pub' map.
- Kris; it's a valid point to think about; is it realistic to think of a single pub map that works for multiple various channels, or do we need to think of more channel-specific maps?
- Eliot; the question is what other reqs go to publishing in other channels, and how do they differ from publishing 'books' with book-type structures?
- Kris; so as a gen'l question; what kind of pub reqs are you actually working with?  Eliot is books; I'm seeing no books at all, all websites and other structures. Others?
- Eliot; here's one of the places I see intersection of book and web publishing; a client was publishing reference docs on web; they were organized in a bookish way, but they also needed a whole layer of web navigation that req'd a adifferent set of maps.
- Chris; I worry about scope creep; windng up with something meant for a wide variety of use cases, but too gen'l to work with any. If we're in the business of developing maps for different use cases. bookmap as currently exists has specific problems we need to address. But once we start to make it omnivorous, we lose focus. But we do need a well-designed, easy-to-use bookmap.
- Kris; so we at minimum need a replacement for bookmap that is structurally sound and well-designed.
- Chris; but we have a map that can be used for anything, that's the base map.
- Eliot; wrt website stuff; for diff clients; the ways they go about it is so different that there's no one way to do it. 
- Alan; when I do website work; I'm usually using DITA for voice-bots, I use the base map and work it out from there, meeting the requirements of any arbitrary pub. engine for any arbitrary format.
- Kris; I'm not advocating that; I've found base DITA 'map' sufficient for anything; maybe we've just not had someone to champion this and define the scope of the new 2.0 pub map. if it's just a bookmap that's stucturally sound...
- Alan; we also want to add ID artifacts necessary in web-based publishing, like navigation stuff; maybe we should aim to hit the 80-20 rule with this?
- Kris; any more thoughts? comments? discussion?; I think we've got consensus that we don't want an omni-purpose new map, but maybe just a replacement for bookmap that's structurally sound.



Kris; any other issues?[
[meeting closed]
Reminder; next week (12/18) is our last meeting in 2018.




11:35 am ET close 


        
-- Ms. Nancy Harrison

Document Name: DITA TC Meeting Minutes 11 December 2018

---

No description provided.
Download Latest Revision
Public Download Link

---

Submitter: Ms. Nancy Harrison
Group: OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC
Folder: Meeting Notes
Date submitted: 2018-12-12 22:40:39