Premise

The S1000D specification combines three separate specifications:

Full S1000D systems have combined costs ranging from $12k per user per year to $50k per user per year, not counting migration and maintenance costs. Smaller organizations are unable to support these costs while remaining competitive.

However the Business Architecture is often the singular critical aspect for supporting aerospace and defense projects. That architecture can be established in other markup formats and processes.

Ascii1000D uses the S1000D business architecture as applied in the Asciidoc LML (lightweight markup language), with additional Semantic Specification requirements supported via the use of Asciidoc Roles. Using the Docs-As-Code paradigm, Ascii1000D builds on long-established process that already exists for the management of software code.

Using the Docs-As-Code approach provides a CCMS framework with standard technology on established tooling, rather than bespoke CCMS (component content management system), bespoke editor, and likely a separate bespoke build engine for PDFs and IETMs.

Markup Comparison

The below chart compares equivalent structures from many different Component Content Systems. Note that some structures, like the S1000D CIR reference, is not possible to summarize in the space of the table cell.

Ascii1000D uses the absolute least possible amount of markup by avoiding admixture of document and product semantics, letting the S1000D architecture do its job in terms of  addressability, referencing, standardization, and systems engineering. 

Why declare incode five different times when you can have it in the filename just once?

Goals

Ascii1000D has a few basic goals

Ascii1000D

Demonstration of an S1000D publication architecture using the Asciidoc LML (lightweight markup language).

Example of Ascii1000D, Visual Studio Code and PDF output

"It's possible this product variant may have some deviance from a supportability perspective"

Parts Data Information (pCIRs)

Note the red line in the following parts data diagram: documentation deliverables must often be structured and sometimes drafted before MTA (Maintenance Task Analysis) can be completed. 

This is an enduring problem both in "formal" S1000D and in Ascii1000D : the writer must have DMCs before beginning, but the maintenance planning necessary for DMC creation might be missing or incomplete.

When this occurs, the Configuration Management and Systems Engineering teams must be worked with in close cooperation, to ensure that the writer team does not create a forked Systems Engineering architecture. Alternatively, one of the writer team can perform roles with the Systems Engineering group and make double use of their Systems work by creating DMCs early on.

S1000D mandates usage of semantically/taxonomically significant filenames, so this process must be managed very carefully. Modern Version Control Systems do not distinguish between a renamed file and a new file. Renamed files have an entirely new change history from the point of view of the change system.

Gitflow: Collaboration versus Review

Collaboration requires SME reviewers and Approvers to have technical buy in to the version control system. "Approval" style reviews can be done without as much buy-in, but Reviewers will not be able to contribute as easily.

Hotspots and SVG