Re: [docbook] questions about the future of docbook (ng)...

[Stefan Seefeld <seefeld at sympatico dot ca>]

HAMILTON,DICK (HP-FtCollins,ex1) wrote:
> Stefan,
>
> Thanks for pointing out this project.  It's the first
> I'd heard about it.
>
> I took a quick look at the templates and I actually
> think most, if not all, of the needed vocabulary is
> already in docbook as it exists today.


Oh, really ? Hmm, I was thinking of entities such as

project, task, role, usecase, requirement, specification,
principle, issue, model, release, target, etc.

which are currently not covered. May be some of them
could be forced into existing concepts (if we really
try hard), but IMO that wouldn't be a good idea.

In the same way Norm insists that docbook isn't a modeling
language (and thus shouldn't go any further in its support
of UML and programming language artefacts) I believe the
richer semantics the above entities have *in this particular
domain* should be kept in a separate profile (or however you
call it).

Regards,
		Stefan


To unsubscribe from this list, send a post to docbook-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org, or visit http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/.