The draft minutes from last week's DITA TC meeting included the following item:

5. Item-2: 1.2 Issue: Glossary Group Topic Type Not Included in ditabase

- Jeff Ogden has distributed an email that summarized many of the

email threads on this topic. There had been some online and some

offline discussions about Jeff's email. Jeff did not believe that

all the issues that he had raised in his summary had actually

been addressed in the subsequent discussions.

- ACTION: Jeff agreed to separate out the unresolved issues in his

email so they could be reviewed and discussed discretely at

the next TC meeting.

My comments and the action item in the minutes above probably belongs on “3.
Business-Item-1: Resumption of: task vs. general task, constraints, conref, and
other related issues.” I sent out a summary for this item before last week’s
meeting and as last week’s draft minutes state “Further discussion deferred to
next week to allow folks not in attendance this week to participate.” I’ll
update the summary and sent it out again before the next TC meeting.

The Glossary Group item was originally raised by Eliot and I haven’t sent
anything out about it.

What I remember from last week’s meeting on the “Glossary Group” question goes
something like this:

Eliot wasn’t on the call. Don thought we should defer the discussion until
Eliot was present. Jeff asked Robert if Glossary Group had been inadvertently
left out of ditabase and this could be considered a bug fix issue and be simply
fixed by adding Glossary Group to ditabase. Robert said that he thought the
question was more a philosophical one and that the TC needed to decide if it
wants to include Glossary Group in the Technical Content ditabase or not. And
with that the discussion was deferred to next week.

Glossary Group (glossgroup) wasn’t part of DITA 1.1. It is currently described
in the “Glossary related elements” section within the “Glossary elements”
section within the “Technical Contents” section of the draft DITA 1.2 Language
Reference. I don’t see any mention of Glossary Group in the Architecture
portions of the spec. although it is always possible that I missed it. I don’t
see any harm in adding Glossary Group to the Technical Content ditabase and so
think we should add it.

-Jeff