Difference between DITA and S1000D

Yes, these sorts of comparisons between systems are very difficult, essentially because there is no independent definition of terms like topic and module outside of the particular systems that use them. In other words, both systems, as well as several other similar systems, use similar terms to describe their models and functions quite independent of each other. It is not like comparing two minivans from different manufacturers. There is no agreed definition of horsepower or steering wheel or door that you can use to compare them with. You basically have to get down to the nitty gritty implementation details and see how they differ.

In my forthcoming book, Structured Writing: Rhetoric and Process, I try to provide some tool-neutral terminology for talking about structured writing methods, largely by avoiding these confusing terms altogether. When it comes to terms like module and topic, I suggest four types of information block: the semantic block (objects that writers would recognize independent of a structured writing system, like lists and tables), the structural block (the things semantic blocks are made from), the information typing block (the kind of blocks found in information typing theory, such as Information Mapping), and the rhetorical block (the thing that is actually meant to be read).

But even with those terms, I could not tell you which of these things a DITA topic is, because the term is just not well defined. Depending on how you use it, it could be any one of my four types. I don't know S1000D well enough to say how their idea of a module would fit, but I suspect it would be similarly vague.

Content, fundamentally, has fuzzy boundaries. It is all the stuff that does not fit neatly into data structures. Structured writing tries to make content look enough like a data structure to be processable by algorithms, but if you try to do that in a general way, you end up making your containers pretty fuzzy in order to fit around all the varied things they have to contain. And thus those containers tend to defy both characterization and comparison.

If you actually want containers that can be defined and compared with any degree of strictness, you have to be much more specific to the subject matter, audience, and type of document you are dealing with.

posted over 5 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Mark Baker‭

4351 reputation 12 1104 742 58

Few short publications, that summarize the differences, and guide to a decision:

1) S1000D or DITA – Which Should You Use? ...A dude with 30+ years in the business of aerospace and software development provides the same "common wisdom" that you mentioned, and emphasizes the different philosophy of DITA "flexibility" vs S1000D "standard" (the "Theory X and Theory Y" part). ..."S1000D implementers dream of the flexibility of DITA, but understand why they’re locked into the S1000D “standard”."

2) DITA vs S1000D - Which One Is Right For Me? ...Specifications, including the differences, benefits and disadvantages to working with each. From an aerospace-industry oriented source.

3) DITA and software development: Ten reasons why DITA and Agile are made for each other and a match for software development teams: Starts from "Topic-based approach" (DITA topic), "Task topic type" (DITA General task topic), and more.

4) Another publication states "What sets DITA apart" (from S1000D). ...is "its specializations" and "inherited versatility". ...Example: IBM developerWorks: Specializing topic types in DITA: Creating new topic-based document types.

In addition:

• Adobe FrameMaker can be used to handle DITA projects.
• Adobe FrameMaker comes ready for DITA out of the box.
• Adobe promotes DITA (Google it: Adobe DITA World)

--

I emailed Keith Schengili-Roberts from IXIASOFT (of publication number 3) about the technical-differences and his answer was a chapter from his book, that you already mentioned. I repeat:

"S1000D does include a mechanism for the reuse of content, known as data modules. These data modules can contain text and/or graphic content, and can be ‘plugged in’ where needed within any S1000D document. There are a number of data module types, roughly analogous to the DITA topic types, and include information that is specific for creating checklists, service bulletins, front matter, parts data, wiring data, learning modules, procedures, faults, information for the crew/operator and more. As you can see from this short list, many of the data modules were originally tailored for specific purposes within the aerospace sector which would not apply in more general circumstances." ... "The specificity of some of its module types to the aerospace and related industries limits the appeal for its adoption outside of these sectors."

(In S1000D) "Each data module comes with a unique identifier, called the Data Module Code, which is designed in part as a mechanism for ensuring that the same module do not appear more than once within a single document. This points to one of the key differences between DITA and S1000D, which is the granularity of the level of reuse. While S1000D encourages reuse at the data module level (roughly equivalent to a topic within DITA), it does not have mechanisms for intra-data module reuse."

(In DITA) "One of the chief differentiators of DITA when compared to the other documentation standards available is the ability to reuse content at both granular (i.e. word, phrase, sentence, topic) and topic/chapter levels. From a practical perspective, it is these multiple stages of reuse that come into play into making DITA a popular standard, making possible the additional advantages of consistent messaging, lower localization costs, and greater efficiencies as writers reuse existing content instead of having to recreate it."

posted over 5 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

System‭

3221 reputation 147 213 552 0