RE: [RMX:NL] Re: [RMX:NL] Re: Request for comments on my Structured Writing series

[<mbaker -at- analecta -dot- com>]

Hi Annette,

Thanks for this. There are a lot of standards out there. More than I have time or space to cover in the book. What I am really looking for is a theory of structured writing: something that would explain or at least classify the structures and algorithms that each of the many standard and custom systems that people are using. 

Thanks,

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Annette Reilly [mailto:annetterieee -at- gmail -dot- com] 
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 3:47 PM
To: mbaker -at- analecta -dot- com; 'Michael Hopwood'; techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Cc: JoAnn Hackos
Subject: RE: [RMX:NL] Re: [RMX:NL] Re: Request for comments on my Structured Writing series

There is ISO/IEC/IEEE 26531, S:2015, systems and software engineering â Content management for product life-cycle, user and service Jo documentation. This standard is system-independent, compatible with DITA but does not require it. It has some material on metadata schema. JoAnn Hackos was the lead editor.
Abstract follows. The standard is available at <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.jsp?newsearch=true&queryText=26531>

Abstract: This International Standard provides requirements for the management of the content used in product life cycle, software, and service management system documentation. Content management allows an organization to control the storage and retrieval of content objects, track content revisions, maintain a content audit trail, and enable a collaborative environment. Component content management supports the reuse of content objects among deliverables and supports multiple deliverable formats. Content objects that are unique and are maintained as independent database objects are efficient to review, approve, and update; may be combined to produce multiple deliverables; and are cost-effective to translate. The standard defines the characteristics of an effective and efficient process through which content is gathered, managed, and published, including the requirements of a system that is supported by an electronic database. Such a database should support documents or topics and content units that may be assembled to produce complete documents for print, electronic output, or content collections published through electronic media. This database is defined as a component content management system (CCMS), as distinct from a document management system. The objective of component content management is to create content objects once and use them through linking mechanisms in multiple output formats including but not limited to documents. Systems conforming to this standard can fulfill business needs for content development and management, especially the need for a single source of authoritative information. The standard includes business case considerations for acquisition of a content management system. This International Standard is independent of the software tools and markup languages that may be used to manage documentation content, and applies to both printed documentation and on-screen documentation.


-----Original Message-----
From: mbaker -at- analecta -dot- com [mailto:mbaker -at- analecta -dot- com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 11:03 PM
To: 'Michael Hopwood' <Michael -dot- Hopwood -at- Gleif -dot- org>; techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: RE: [RMX:NL] Re: [RMX:NL] Re: Request for comments on my Structured Writing series

Thanks for the comment, Michael.

The question about literature is an interesting one. There is quite a body of literature on markup theory as it relates to the representation of texts. That is, as it relates to taking an existing text and electronically representing the facets of that text for purposes of study, for instance. TEI is at the center of this, and there are interesting debates about whether texts can be validly represented as a hierarchy of objects. (Answer seems to be no.)

But I am concerned with a different problem: structured writing as a method for constraining the authoring process. This does involve the application of metadata to texts, and such metadata might conceivably pass through to TEI or some less ambitious annotation method like HTML microformats. But it is not created for that purpose, but with the purpose of constraining authoring to promote quality, consistency, and efficiency. 

If microformat markup was part of the desired outputs, it would obviously be concerned with making sure it got created correctly. But it is not concerned with the theory of what the microformat markup should be, just the process of creating it. 

A system of constraints does not need to have the same degree of representational validity as something like TEI. It just needs to demonstrably improve quality, consistency, or efficiency for a reasonable cost. It does not have to deal with the whole representational problem, just those parts where it can make a difference. This is reflected in the very many more or less ad hoc systems that have been created and deployed over the years, including both commercial tools and in house projects. Each of these has its own vocabulary, often using the same words to describe different structures or algorithms from the next one, which makes comparisons difficult. I have long felt that we lack a means to describe, compare, and contrast what each of these was doing, and to talk about what we would like an ideal system to do. 

That is really the gap that this book is trying to fill, and if there is another work out that that attempts to meet this need, I have not heard of it. The searches I do turn up articles on text representation rather than constrained authoring. So if anyone has any references to suggest, I would be deeply grateful for them. 

There is, of course, lots of practical advice on using current system like DITA or DocBook. But they all have their own vocabularies, as noted above. I am looking for something more general and higher level. Something that describes the class rather than the instance. 

The book very much arises out of a feeling that there is a gap to be filled here. But I would be very happy to discover if the gap is not so wide or so empty as it seems to me to be. 

Thanks,

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Hopwood [mailto:Michael -dot- Hopwood -at- Gleif -dot- org] 
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 10:26 AM
To: mbaker -at- analecta -dot- com; 'Slager Timothy J'; 'Julie Stickler'; 'TECHWR-L Writing'
Subject: Re: [RMX:NL] Re: [RMX:NL] Re: Request for comments on my Structured Writing series

As a very technical textbook for the audiences you mentioned this seems highly appropriate. Iâd be interested to see if the book will come with some references to the literature (because I wonder if there is any literature at all that does what this  book aims for).






^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development | http://techwhirl.com

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- 

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com


Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.techwhirl.com/email-discussion-groups/ for more resources and info.

Looking for articles on Technical Communications?  Head over to our online magazine at http://techwhirl.com

Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions?  Search our public email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives