Comments on: Choosing an XML Schema: DocBook or DITA? http://thecontentwrangler.com/2008/04/11/choosing_an_xml_schema_docbook_or_dita/ Content is a business asset worthy of being managed Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:29:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: ScottAbel http://thecontentwrangler.com/2008/04/11/choosing_an_xml_schema_docbook_or_dita/comment-page-1/#comment-310 ScottAbel Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:39:21 +0000 http://localhost:8888/ee/?p=351#comment-310 <p>Matthew: </p> <p> Although some DITA and DocBook gurus like to explain why their preferred architectures *could* work for many reasons (for instance, DITA *could* be wrapped around blog content on The Content Wrangler, although it wasn’t designed for such purposes specifically) it’s better to use your industry standards where appropriate. HL7 is designed for a very specific purpose, as are other pharma, medical device, and healthcare markup languages. Use them where and when you need to. However, these markups are not flexible enough to handle all situations. So, you are likely to need more than one. </p> <p> Joe Gollner of Stilo has talked about projects on which he’s worked in with DITA was used with S1000D (a trnasportation/aerospace standard) and SCORM (an XML standard that helps make course topics modular in training materials). You can contact Joe on The Content Wrangler Community <a href="http://thecontentwrangler.ning.com" rel="nofollow">http://thecontentwrangler.ning.com</a>. Search for Joe Gollner in the member directory. </p> <p> You can also find Joe’s slide decks here: </p> <p> <a href="http://www.doctrain.com/west/" rel="nofollow">http://www.doctrain.com/west/</a> </p> <p> He gave 4 great presentations at that event (slide decks are online). There were also some others who covered this topic as well. </p> <p> Hope that helps. </p> <p> If you need help from a professional who has experience in life sciences, contact Ann Rockley at The Rockley Group (<script type="text/javascript"> //<![CDATA[ var l=new Array(); l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='<';l[4]=' 109';l[5]=' 111';l[6]=' 99';l[7]=' 46';l[8]=' 121';l[9]=' 101';l[10]=' 108';l[11]=' 107';l[12]=' 99';l[13]=' 111';l[14]=' 114';l[15]=' 64';l[16]=' 121';l[17]=' 101';l[18]=' 108';l[19]=' 107';l[20]=' 99';l[21]=' 111';l[22]=' 114';l[23]='>';l[24]='\"';l[25]=' 109';l[26]=' 111';l[27]=' 99';l[28]=' 46';l[29]=' 121';l[30]=' 101';l[31]=' 108';l[32]=' 107';l[33]=' 99';l[34]=' 111';l[35]=' 114';l[36]=' 64';l[37]=' 121';l[38]=' 101';l[39]=' 108';l[40]=' 107';l[41]=' 99';l[42]=' 111';l[43]=' 114';l[44]=':';l[45]='o';l[46]='t';l[47]='l';l[48]='i';l[49]='a';l[50]='m';l[51]='\"';l[52]='=';l[53]='f';l[54]='e';l[55]='r';l[56]='h';l[57]='a ';l[58]='<'; for (var i = l.length-1; i >= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') document.write("&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"); else document.write(unescape(l[i])); } //]]> </script> and <a href="http://www.rockley.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.rockley.com</a>) </p> Matthew:

Although some DITA and DocBook gurus like to explain why their preferred architectures *could* work for many reasons (for instance, DITA *could* be wrapped around blog content on The Content Wrangler, although it wasn’t designed for such purposes specifically) it’s better to use your industry standards where appropriate. HL7 is designed for a very specific purpose, as are other pharma, medical device, and healthcare markup languages. Use them where and when you need to. However, these markups are not flexible enough to handle all situations. So, you are likely to need more than one.

Joe Gollner of Stilo has talked about projects on which he’s worked in with DITA was used with S1000D (a trnasportation/aerospace standard) and SCORM (an XML standard that helps make course topics modular in training materials). You can contact Joe on The Content Wrangler Community http://thecontentwrangler.ning.com. Search for Joe Gollner in the member directory.

You can also find Joe’s slide decks here:

http://www.doctrain.com/west/

He gave 4 great presentations at that event (slide decks are online). There were also some others who covered this topic as well.

Hope that helps.

If you need help from a professional who has experience in life sciences, contact Ann Rockley at The Rockley Group ( and http://www.rockley.com)

]]> By: Matthew Brandabur http://thecontentwrangler.com/2008/04/11/choosing_an_xml_schema_docbook_or_dita/comment-page-1/#comment-309 Matthew Brandabur Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:52:47 +0000 http://localhost:8888/ee/?p=351#comment-309 <p>What if you ARE in an industry (such as energy or pharma) where an industry schema does exist for terminology? Does that mean I don’t have to choose between DITA and DocBook? Does that mean I could use something like HL7 or something from a spec published by IEEE as a framework around which to build a single-source implementation? <br /> Furthermore, I’m inheriting lots of artifacts from SparxSystems Enterprise Architect, and I am considering what it would take to store my source material inside EA files, render it out as XMI and then pull it into something like Epic. But I am hoping there’s an easier way… </p> <p> Ideas welcome! </p> <p> <script type="text/javascript"> //<![CDATA[ var l=new Array(); l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='<';l[4]=' 109';l[5]=' 111';l[6]=' 99';l[7]=' 46';l[8]=' 108';l[9]=' 105';l[10]=' 97';l[11]=' 109';l[12]=' 103';l[13]=' 64';l[14]=' 114';l[15]=' 117';l[16]=' 98';l[17]=' 97';l[18]=' 100';l[19]=' 110';l[20]=' 97';l[21]=' 114';l[22]=' 98';l[23]=' 119';l[24]=' 101';l[25]=' 104';l[26]=' 116';l[27]=' 116';l[28]=' 97';l[29]=' 109';l[30]='>';l[31]='\"';l[32]=' 109';l[33]=' 111';l[34]=' 99';l[35]=' 46';l[36]=' 108';l[37]=' 105';l[38]=' 97';l[39]=' 109';l[40]=' 103';l[41]=' 64';l[42]=' 114';l[43]=' 117';l[44]=' 98';l[45]=' 97';l[46]=' 100';l[47]=' 110';l[48]=' 97';l[49]=' 114';l[50]=' 98';l[51]=' 119';l[52]=' 101';l[53]=' 104';l[54]=' 116';l[55]=' 116';l[56]=' 97';l[57]=' 109';l[58]=':';l[59]='o';l[60]='t';l[61]='l';l[62]='i';l[63]='a';l[64]='m';l[65]='\"';l[66]='=';l[67]='f';l[68]='e';l[69]='r';l[70]='h';l[71]='a ';l[72]='<'; for (var i = l.length-1; i >= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') document.write("&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"); else document.write(unescape(l[i])); } //]]> </script> </p> What if you ARE in an industry (such as energy or pharma) where an industry schema does exist for terminology? Does that mean I don’t have to choose between DITA and DocBook? Does that mean I could use something like HL7 or something from a spec published by IEEE as a framework around which to build a single-source implementation?

Furthermore, I’m inheriting lots of artifacts from SparxSystems Enterprise Architect, and I am considering what it would take to store my source material inside EA files, render it out as XMI and then pull it into something like Epic. But I am hoping there’s an easier way…

Ideas welcome!

]]> By: Eliot Kimber http://thecontentwrangler.com/2008/04/11/choosing_an_xml_schema_docbook_or_dita/comment-page-1/#comment-308 Eliot Kimber Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:04:17 +0000 http://localhost:8888/ee/?p=351#comment-308 <p>I generally agree with Richard’s analysis as far as it goes but I think he has underrepresented DITA’s ability to *easily* accommodate narrative documents and has seriously undervalued specialization. I have recently come to appreciate the degree to which DITA’s specialization mechanism is significant distinguisher compared to any other *possible* XML application in that it lowers the cost of development and use as low as it could possibly be. Given that DITA can be used easily and effectively for narrative documents (that is, you can use DITA and simply ignore all the modularity features if you really want to), it becomes hard to argue that DITA is not the best choice for most, if not all XML applications on simple economic grounds. </p> <p> I’ve posted a more detailed response to Richard’s article on my blog here: <a href="http://drmacros-xml-rants.blogspot.com/2008/04/choosing-xml-schema-docbook-or-dita.html" rel="nofollow">http://drmacros-xml-rants.blogspot.com/2008/04/choosing-xml-schema-docbook-or-dita.html</a> </p> I generally agree with Richard’s analysis as far as it goes but I think he has underrepresented DITA’s ability to *easily* accommodate narrative documents and has seriously undervalued specialization. I have recently come to appreciate the degree to which DITA’s specialization mechanism is significant distinguisher compared to any other *possible* XML application in that it lowers the cost of development and use as low as it could possibly be. Given that DITA can be used easily and effectively for narrative documents (that is, you can use DITA and simply ignore all the modularity features if you really want to), it becomes hard to argue that DITA is not the best choice for most, if not all XML applications on simple economic grounds.

I’ve posted a more detailed response to Richard’s article on my blog here: http://drmacros-xml-rants.blogspot.com/2008/04/choosing-xml-schema-docbook-or-dita.html

]]>