TEI: 27 Sep 2006 (tcm26)

Minutes from last meeting

Council: comment on the ‘short names’ …

done

eds.: implement …

Implemented except for French — agreed (LB dissenting) to go w/ LR's proposal to rename fr/ files to same as en/.

Action 1: SB change French filenames, too 2006-10-11

CT & DP: Post proposal of how to link texts and images

completed

Council: Read P5 chapter 14.9 Stand-off Markup …

No one read the chapter and reported. CW suggests we can close this issue.

DB: Report on TD (documentation elements) with respect to the class system …

DB not present, deferred

SB: Repost summary of the questions pending …

SB reports this item has been completed. Furthermore, the changes to the Guidelines that were suggested have been enacted. The only outstanding issue from this round of discussion is that of certainty, accuracy, confidence, exactness, precision, etc. However, another issue has since been raised: how to encode regularizations of non(-proleptic)-Gregorian dates. P4, while recommending a specific format for (proleptic-)Gregorian dates permitted users to use other systems so long as they were documented in a particular manner. After some discussion on this issue we were able to reject some possibilities (e.g., that the W3C syntax be retained, but without the restriction to (proleptic-)Gregorian dates), but were not able to definitively conclude how to proceed. Both use of one set of attributes with their semantics declared in the header (ala P4) was suggested, and two parallel sets of attributes.

Action 2: SB summarize dating attributes issues for Council, with firm recommendations where possible. 2006-11-07

SB: find places where a ‘header-phrase’ class would be useful.

Done, see the result. However, after some discussion, we were reminded that there are really two different questions of interest:

what elements in the current system would be better if their content models included a limited version of model.phrase; this group includes some elements that are not found in the <teiHeader> (like <figDesc> ), but excludes many that may appear in the <teiHeader> because they also can be used as descendants of <text> in a manner that would require the full model.phrase (e.g. <p> and <name> )
what parts of the <teiHeader> would be better if their content models included a limited version of model.phrase, regardless of whether or not it is currently possible (because they might also appear in the transcription, i.e. as a descendant of <text> )

SB had interpreted the action item as only referring to the first of these questions. Council discussed both issues; it was decided that both are worth pursuing. Two mechanisms were identigied for verifying which elements can make use of the ‘limited phrase’ class, and which require the complete model.phrase. The first was for Council members to scan the list SB produced looking for obvious errors or elements of concern. The second was to produce a schema that makes use of the ‘limited phrase’ class, and for Council members to use this schema and large quantities of data looking for problems. Council chose the former method, without ruling out use of the latter later (did I get that right? —SB).

Action 3: Council consider list of limited phrase elements and propose refinements if needed 2006-10-11

Action 4: SB Implement ‘limited phrase’ system using the elements in the refined version of the list. 2006-11-08

LR: Explain where macro.glossSeq or model.glossLike is not a good idea, but <desc> is.

LR indicated that he needed a better method of querying TEI to look for these. He was referred to ED W 84; a newer version of this is available from http://tei.oucs.ox.ac.uk/Oxford/2006-09-methNet/Materials/catalogue.xhtml .

Action 5: LR post to Council a list of elements which contain either macro.glossSeq or model.glossLike in their content model, but really should have only <desc> 2006-09-29

DP: post to TEI-OL-SIG about span alone, deferring information about the chapter.

Done

CW: Remind JW about posting <biblItem>, <biblStruct>, and MODS discussion

CW reports he did so. JW reports he has some notes that he will get out to the group this week.

Action 6: JW Write a document discussing: 1. bibliographic elements ( <bibl> , <biblFull> , <biblItem> , and <biblStruct> ) 2. How to incorporate MODS into a TEI document 3. his own and perhaps others' opinions on <extent> . 2006-10-01

He reports that MODS is much more of a cataloging approach.

DB: post draft of ‘guiding principles for further development’ document

discussion deferred, see below

Council: read PB document, post to list even if only "I read it, it's fine".

Not done. Discussion deferred, see below.

MD: Rewrite the examples MM provides in the PB document using a more generic mechanism

discussion deferred, as MD not present

DP: review her own manuscript description work to see if anything there would be helpful, and report back to list

Discussion deferred, see below.

MD & DP

Discussion deferred, see below.

LB

Discussion deferred. Note: this item was accomplished, DP & MD are now on the PB list — SB

MZ: Check whether the monies personography has not spent was pre-budgeted, and whether Council reimbursements have been processed yet

discussion deferred as MZ not present

SB: post to TEI-L, announcing that the deadline for a feature request to be considered for P5 1.0 is 2006-09-01

SB reports this was done

Council: come up with a list of elements to be considered for execution, and submit as a feature request on Sourceforge

Not discussed. Note: this was not done — SB

WGs

PB

DP reports that her comments were posted to the PB list, and that MM replied. DP has been thinking about this, thinks LB's response echoes some of her own concerns. Consensus is to keep the conversation going, perhaps with DP demonstrating her system. It should be pointed out that marking up the formula limits processing as compared to an abstract representation.

PERS

CW suggests another meeting, but we're unsure of funds.

Action 7: CW ask MD if he is willing to take personography forward into places/ontology

Action 8: CW ascertain whether or not we have funding for a meeting

There is some overlap between this WG and the planned activities of the ontology SIG. SR suggests that group decide via e-mail whether or not moving forward would significantly change the existing work.

Document review

Maintenance

Consensus that DB's document is pretty reasonable, and should be published. Some suggested that it should be presented in Victoria.

Action 9: LB with DB revise DB's draft document as a working paper for Council TC W 08 2006-10-20

TEXT + IMAGE encoding

Council discussed the document recently posted by DP & CT, and then discussed somewhat on the list.

It was generally agreed that the document is divided into two parts:

linking text & image
incorporating SVG into TEI

The general feeling was that the first part is significant work that requires only a concrete formal proposal to be added, a bit more revision before being handed to the editors to be folded into the Guidelines (either as part of PH or FT).

Action 10: DP & CT revise document somewhat, with an eye towards what parts are intended for Guidelines. by MM

As for the second part, the consensus was that SVG should not be incorporated in the TEI Guidelines directly, but that instead a sample ODD demonstrating how to do this be made publicly available.

JW suggests a name other than fax for the attribute that points to an element's image.

Open issues

conformance

— action still on MZ and JC; LR has points he intends to contribute. All Council members should continue to contribute to discussion.

Action 11: all contribute to conformance discussion 2006-11-15

Will be on agenda for next conference call.

Other business

feature requests

Lack of time precluded full discussion of this initial digest. LB asked for Council's endorsement of his provisional prioritization: this was given, modulo some corrections (see appended list). Further topics noted:

<extent>: Three uses: how big (for librarians), like <biblScope> , or structured data. Action on JW (see above) to discuss the issue.

next call 11-22; reports CW to discuss w/ editors, and post to council

Meetings

MM

As we are out of time, very little discussion of reports took place. CW will discuss them with the editors and post to the Council.

next call

Next conference call is tentatively scheduled for Wed 22 Nov 06 at 12:00.

SF Feature requests

LB had posted to the list a number of items the following summary of issues for resolution. The agreed resolution is indicated as follows:

1540221: Add <age> as a child of <person> analogous to <sex> (YES)
1524368: Change content model of <msIdentifier> to reference class model.placeLiLike_sequenceoptional (YES, if MJD and DB agree)
1442353: Add <listPerson> to att.typed class (YES)
1550795: Change content model of <catDesc> to reference model.glossLike (MAYBE, at SB's request)
1058736: Add new <stamp> element to MS module analogous to <seal> (MAYBE; or generalise?)
1007370: Add new <theorem> element as specific kind of <ab> (not clear in which module to put it) (MAYBE: council requested more information)
1551357: Relax the content model of <app> to permit generic <note> element as well as or instead of the structured <rdg> <lem> pairs. This probably needs a class. (MAYBE)
1007369: Define a set of default values for rend to indicate block and numbering options (NO)

Appendix A:

Call ended at 14:06.

TEI Council Conference Call 27 Sep 06

Contents