🚀 go-pugleaf

What follows is The Open Software Foundation's request for SGML
Document Type Definitions (DTDs).  The rest of this posting is a
plain-text (ascii) version of the cover letter and the request itself.
In a followup posting is a PostScript version.

	John Bowe

------------------------- cut here ---------------------------







       Documentation Engineering Group
       The Open Software Foundation
       11 Cambridge Center
       Cambridge, MA 02142




                                                 19 December 1990



       The Open Software Foundation (OSF) Documentation Engineering
       group is pleased to send you this Request for Document Type
       Definitions (DTDs).  This technical search is the next step
       in our migration towards the use of Standard Generalized
       Markup Language (SGML) (ISO 8879) as an interchange format
       for OSF technical documentation.  This migration was
       recommended by the OSF Documentation Special Interest Group
       earlier this year.

       Please note that the letters of intent to respond are due by
       31 January 1991.  In case of questions contact Fred
       Dalrymple at 617 621-8855, John Bowe at 617 621-7269, or
       rfdtd@osf.org by electronic mail.

       We wish you a happy and safe holiday season.






                                                 Sincerely,




                                                 Elizabeth Connolly


























                               RRRReeeeqqqquuuueeeesssstttt ffffoooorrrr
                        DDDDooooccccuuuummmmeeeennnntttt TTTTyyyyppppeeee DDDDeeeeffffiiiinnnniiiittttiiiioooonnnnssss
                         OOOOppppeeeennnn SSSSooooffffttttwwwwaaaarrrreeee FFFFoooouuuunnnnddddaaaattttiiiioooonnnn
                             11119999 DDDDeeeecccceeeemmmmbbbbeeeerrrr 1111999999990000



       1.  IIIInnnnttttrrrroooodddduuuuccccttttiiiioooonnnn

       The Open Software Foundation (OSF) is issuing a Request For
       Document Type Definitions (DTDs) to continue the process of
       establishing a semantic document markup language to be used
       for the distribution of OSF documentation.  This
       documentation includes, but is not limited to, reference
       manuals, tutorial books, journal articles, and other
       technically oriented papers, intended for both internal OSF
       and licensee use.

       This request is intentionally less formal than an OSF
       Request for Technology (RFT).  Although we will distribute
       it widely and believe that we will receive good responses,
       we also believe that the number of possible solutions is
       small (because of our narrow definition).  We will work with
       the OSF's Documentation Special Interest Group
       (Documentation SIG) to review all submissions, select
       technology, and write a rationale for our decision; however,
       OSF resources will not be devoted to this work full-time as
       in a formal RFT.

       Currently, OSF technology suppliers submit documentation to
       OSF in many different mark-up languages.  It is the task of
       OSF's documentation staff to integrate the submitted
       material into coherent, unified documents, which are
       distributed to the licensees with OSF's offerings.
       Licensees generally want to incorporate the documents
       written and integrated by OSF into their own, often
       proprietary, document format.  OSF is interested in the
       content of the submitted documents, but not the printed
       formats.  Suppliers, integrators, and licensees all want the
       ability to use the same content and structure, but to tailor
       it to their own display format and style.  Our requirement
       is that documents be marked up semantically; formatting
       information is not appropriate.

       OSF must also provide a reasonable means for licensees to
       view OSF documents.  The appearance need not be
       sophisticated, but a reasonably formatted representation
       should be provided for the semantic markup.  The issue of
       presentation of documents, however, is beyond the scope of
       this request for DTDs.




                                  - 1 -











       Earlier this year OSF's Documentation Special Interest
       Group's Information Architecture Task Force charted a course
       for Information Architecture and Communications.  In the
       initial phase of this process, which is complete, we
       migrated OSF's documentation to a semantic markup using
       troff macros.  We call this macro package Semantic Markup
       Language (SML).  There are two flavors of SML - General
       Purpose SML (GPSML), and Reference SML (RSML).  From a
       writer's point of view these supplement or replace mm and
       man macros, respectively.  With documentation in a semantic
       representation, we feel it will be straightforward to
       proceed to the next phase (as recommended by the
       Documentation SIG and accepted by OSF):  Standard
       Generalized Markup Language (SGML).  In this next phase we
       will obtain Document Type Definitions, written in SGML, for
       the documents that OSF produces.

       There are several documents with which those considering
       responding to this request should be familiar, the first
       three of which are available from OSF:

          +o _O_S_F _R_e_q_u_i_r_e_m_e_n_t_s _f_o_r _I_n_f_o_r_m_a_t_i_o_n _A_r_c_h_i_t_e_c_t_u_r_e _a_n_d
            _C_o_m_m_u_n_i_c_a_t_i_o_n_s; F. Dalrymple; OSF; 1990.

          +o _P_r_o_p_o_s_a_l _f_o_r _S_e_m_a_n_t_i_c _M_a_r_k _U_p _o_f _O_S_F _D_o_c_u_m_e_n_t_s; E.
            Connolly, F. Dalrymple; OSF; 1990.

          +o _I_n_f_o_r_m_a_t_i_o_n _A_r_c_h_i_t_e_c_t_u_r_e _T_a_s_k _F_o_r_c_e _R_e_p_o_r_t; E. Mooney,
            Hewlett-Packard; M. Rountree, Digital Equipment Corp.;
            1990.

          +o _I_n_f_o_r_m_a_t_i_o_n _P_r_o_c_e_s_s_i_n_g - _T_e_x_t _a_n_d _O_f_f_i_c_e _O_f_f_i_c_e _S_y_s_t_e_m_s
            - _S_t_a_n_d_a_r_d _G_e_n_e_r_a_l_i_z_e_d _M_a_r_k_u_p _L_a_n_g_u_a_g_e (_S_G_M_L); ANSI;
            ISO 8879; New York, 1986.

          +o _M_a_r_k_u_p _S_y_s_t_e_m_s _a_n_d _t_h_e _F_u_t_u_r_e _o_f _S_c_h_o_l_a_r_l_y _T_e_x_t
            _P_r_o_c_e_s_s_i_n_g; J. Coombs, A. Renear, and S. DeRose,
            _C_o_m_m_u_n_i_c_a_t_i_o_n_s _o_f _t_h_e _A_C_M; Vol 30, No 11, November
            1987.

       Once we are satisfied with our Document Type Definitions, we
       plan to offer them to OSF technology licensees.  We will
       distribute all documentation associated with our offerings
       using these DTDs, or a subset of them.  Currently we
       distribute our documents in troff format.









                                  - 2 -











       2.  RRRReeeeqqqquuuuiiiirrrreeeemmmmeeeennnnttttssss

       There are some aspects of OSF's requirements that we
       consider optional, but they may influence our selections; we
       will call these Optional Requirements.

       2.1  MMMMaaaannnnddddaaaattttoooorrrryyyy RRRReeeeqqqquuuuiiiirrrreeeemmmmeeeennnnttttssss

       Submitted Document Type Definitions must satisfy the
       following requirements:

       2.1.1  LLLLooooggggiiiiccccaaaallll eeeexxxxtttteeeennnnssssiiiioooonnnn ttttoooo GGGGPPPPSSSSMMMMLLLL aaaannnndddd RRRRSSSSMMMMLLLL
       The DTDs must include all the present functionality of GPSML
       and RSML.  These are the two major areas of functionality
       that we now use for producing documentation of OSF's current
       offerings.  OSF also produces a variety of technical papers,
       books, and reference manuals (see section on which DTDs OSF
       will need).  The set of DTDs chosen must meet our needs in
       producing all these documents.

       2.1.2  PPPPrrrroooovvvveeeennnn tttteeeecccchhhhnnnnoooollllooooggggiiiieeeessss
       Submissions must have been used to create and produce
       complex documents in a working environment.  This does not
       necessarily mean that submissions must be of production
       quality.

       2.1.3  IIIISSSSOOOO 8888888877779999 CCCCoooonnnnffffoooorrrrmmmmaaaannnncccceeee
       Submissions must conform to ISO 8879, the SGML
       specification.

       2.1.4  AAAAlllllllloooowwwwaaaannnncccceeee ooooffff FFFFiiiinnnnaaaallll FFFFoooorrrrmmmm MMMMaaaarrrrkkkkuuuupppp EEEElllleeeemmmmeeeennnnttttssss
       There are some instances when the final form appearance of
       an element of a document is more important than the
       semantics.  For example, in a graphic design the placement
       of a bitmap and some text may not be subject to
       interpretation, as with the inclusion of a PostScript
       program.  The Document Type Definitions adopted must allow
       for this.

       2.1.5  PPPPoooorrrrttttaaaabbbbiiiilllliiiittttyyyy
       Any programs submitted must be portable to a wide variety of
       platforms.

       2.2  OOOOppppttttiiiioooonnnnaaaallll RRRReeeeqqqquuuuiiiirrrreeeemmmmeeeennnnttttssss

       Submitted Document Type Definitions should satisfy the
       following requirements:







                                  - 3 -











       2.2.1  HHHHyyyyppppeeeerrrrmmmmeeeeddddiiiiaaaa CCCCoooonnnnssssiiiiddddeeeerrrraaaattttiiiioooonnnnssss
       Although the world of hypermedia is still young and growing,
       the Document Type Definitions adopted should support the
       concepts of _l_i_n_k_s between different types of information and
       the _m_e_a_n_i_n_g of those links.  We do not anticipate immediate
       use of this hyper information, but we will need it in later
       phases of OSF's Information Architecture plans.

       2.2.2  SSSShhhhaaaarrrreeeedddd ccccoooonnnntttteeeennnntttt
       Most (at least 80%) of the content of the DTDs adopted
       should be shared.  We believe that the core of all DTDs that
       we will use will be identical, with extensions and
       variations to fit a particular type of document.


       3.  DDDDeeeelllliiiivvvveeeerrrraaaabbbblllleeeessss

       OSF needs to make the DTDs and associated technologies
       available free of charge with OSF offerings.  For this
       reason the DTDs must be made available by submitters to OSF
       at no charge.  Those organizations wishing to respond to
       this request for Document Type Definitions should submit the
       following:

       3.1  DDDDTTTTDDDDssss

       Set of Document Type Definitions.  These must be written in
       SGML.

       3.2  TTTTrrrraaaannnnssssllllaaaattttoooorrrrssss

       Any available translators to and from a particular set of
       languages should be included with submissions.  We do not
       wish to specify an exact set of languages, but we know that
       SML and troff are very important to our licensees because of
       their wide use and portability.  Translators to and from
       other freely available markup formats would be very
       desirable, as would translators to and from formats of
       easily-obtained commercial text processing products.

       3.3  DDDDooooccccuuuummmmeeeennnnttttaaaattttiiiioooonnnn

       Submissions must include clear, accurate, well organized,
       and usable specifications for our review and evaluation.

       3.4  SSSSaaaammmmpppplllleeee DDDDooooccccuuuummmmeeeennnnttttssss

       Submissions must include examples of documents marked up
       with the DTD, for our evaluation.





                                  - 4 -











       3.5  VVVVaaaalllliiiiddddaaaattttiiiioooonnnn

       Those making submissions should provide validation suites to
       test the elements of their Document Type Definitions.


       4.  QQQQuuuueeeessssttttiiiioooonnnnssss

       The following short discussion touches upon some issues we
       have not resolved.  We hope that this leaves more room for
       flexibility for potential DTD submitters.

       4.1  WWWWhhhhiiiicccchhhh DDDDTTTTDDDDssss wwwwiiiillllllll OOOOSSSSFFFF nnnneeeeeeeedddd????

       How many DTDs?  Should there be many to choose from, or
       should there be just a few, highly-customizable ones?  A
       look at what kinds of documentation OSF currently produces
       should help clarify our needs.

       OSF produces specifications, reference manuals, and guides
       for OSF offerings.  Reference manuals are available as books
       and on-line as UNIX ``man pages''.  Specifications and
       guides are available as books.  OSF provides this
       documentation on its source tapes, in source and final
       format.  OSF also publishes a subset of these manuals
       through Prentice Hall.

       The OSF documentation offerings include volumes on the
       OSF/Motif GUI, the OSF/1 Operating System, and the
       Distributed Computing Environment (DCE).

       OSF also produces various technical and non-technical
       papers.  These include:  simple, single-page memos; multi-
       page papers, such as this Request for DTDs; marketing
       literature; journal articles; and in-depth technical
       discussions which are less formal than books.

       4.2  SSSSttttrrrruuuuccccttttuuuurrrreeee

       Do we use a small number of DTDs to support a few large
       classes of different books, or a single DTD per minor
       variant of OSF document?  We expect that the best solution
       is somewhere in between.


       5.  PPPPrrrreeeelllliiiimmmmiiiinnnnaaaarrrryyyy EEEEvvvvaaaalllluuuuaaaattttiiiioooonnnn CCCCrrrriiiitttteeeerrrriiiiaaaa

       This is our initial set of evaluation criteria.  We expect
       to develop a final set of evaluation criteria in conjunction
       with the Documentation SIG and the submitters.




                                  - 5 -











          +o Flexibility of design and capabilities

          +o Simplicity of design

          +o Clarity of structure and documentation

          +o Completeness of coverage

          +o Availability of environments (i.e. use of the DTDs by
            current document systems, whether commercial or
            otherwise)

          +o Amount of experience people have with the DTDs (i.e.
            how much use the DTDs have gotten)

          +o Compliance to certain existing DTDs, such as CALS, or
            already approved standards.  This may be a factor in
            the evaluation.

          +o Others, as offered by the Documentation SIG.


       6.  RRRReeeevvvviiiieeeewwww PPPPrrrroooocccceeeessssssss aaaannnndddd SSSScccchhhheeeedddduuuulllleeee

       OSF will select DTDs best meeting our requirements.  As with
       most OSF requests for technology, we may combine submissions
       to create a consistent, complete offering.

       The following is a preliminary schedule.  We will set a
       final schedule after consulting with the Documentation SIG.

       6.1  RRRReeeeqqqquuuueeeesssstttt ffffoooorrrr DDDDooooccccuuuummmmeeeennnntttt TTTTyyyyppppeeee DDDDeeeeffffiiiinnnniiiittttiiiioooonnnnssss iiiissssssssuuuueeeedddd

       This Request is being solicited in December 1990.

       6.2  LLLLeeeetttttttteeeerrrrssss ooooffff iiiinnnntttteeeennnntttt ttttoooo rrrreeeessssppppoooonnnndddd

       Letters of intent to respond are due 31 January 1991.  They
       should not exceed 12 pages and should include:

          +o An executive summary (1 to 3 pages)

          +o An overview of the basic design philosophy

          +o A list of document types for which DTDs will be
            provided

          +o A statement of willingness to openly license the DTDs

       After letters of intent have been received, OSF will
       distribute copies of the executive summaries to all



                                  - 6 -











       submitters and OSF members.

       6.3  RRRReeeevvvviiiieeeewwww ooooffff lllleeeetttttttteeeerrrrssss ooooffff iiiinnnntttteeeennnntttt

       DTD submitters and the Documentation SIG will be invited to
       OSF to review the letters of intent and develop the final
       evaluation criteria.  This meeting will occur during the
       first week of February 1991.

       6.4  SSSSuuuubbbbmmmmiiiissssssssiiiioooonnnn ddddeeeeaaaaddddlllliiiinnnneeee

       All materials from submitters must be received by OSF by 15
       April 1991.

       6.5  SSSSuuuubbbbmmmmiiiissssssssiiiioooonnnn aaaannnnaaaallllyyyyssssiiiissss

       DTD submitters, the Documentation SIG, and relevant experts
       will be invited to participate in the analysis of the DTD
       submissions.  We hope to achieve a consensus of what we feel
       is the best set of DTDs to meet the given requirements.
       This meeting will occur in May 1991.

       6.6  OOOOSSSSFFFF aaaannnnaaaallllyyyyssssiiiissss

       OSF will analyze the DTD submissions in light of the
       comments made by the submitters, SIG, and assembled experts.

       6.7  DDDDTTTTDDDD cccchhhhooooiiiicccceeeessss

       OSF will be responsible for the final choices and will
       publicly announce the selected technologies and the
       selection rationale.  We will make our choices as soon as
       possible after the analysis.

       6.8  IIIImmmmpppplllleeeemmmmeeeennnnttttaaaattttiiiioooonnnn aaaannnndddd rrrreeeeaaaalllliiiizzzzaaaattttiiiioooonnnn

       OSF will make the DTD technologies chosen available.


       7.  HHHHoooowwww ttttoooo SSSSuuuubbbbmmmmiiiitttt

       Send submissions to:
          Open Software Foundation
          ATTN: RFDTD Inquiries Desk
          11 Cambridge Center
          Cambridge, MA 02142
       Questions should be directed to:
          Fred Dalrymple, 617 621-8855, or
          John Bowe, 617 621-7269
       or, via electronic mail:
          rfdtd@osf.org



                                  - 7 -











       UNIX is a registered trademark of UNIX Systems Laboratories,
       Inc. in the U.S. and other countries




















































                                  - 8 -