 
%------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Since this meeting, Professor Mamrak has resigned as chair of the
% Metalanguage Working Committee. The Steering Committee will appoint a
% replacement within a short time, but I thought it would be worthwhile to
% get these minutes out while the meeting is still reasonably fresh in
% all our memories.
%             Lou Burnard 10 jul 89
%------------------------------------------------------------------------
\documentstyle[12pt]{article}
\begin{document}
\begin{center}
\begin{bf}
TEI Document no ML-M-6\\
15 June 1989
\begin{small}
Minutes of the first meeting of the Metalanguage and Syntax
Working Committee of the Text Encoding Initative
 
 
Held at the University of Toronto, Monday 4 June 1989
\end{small}
\end{bf}
\end{center}
 
Present: Sandra Mamrak (SM), chair; David Barnard (DB); Lou
Burnard (LB); Roberto Cencioni (RC); Jean-Pierre Gaspart (JPG);
Nancy Ide (NI); Michael Sperberg-McQueen (MSM).
 
\section{Introductory discussion}
SM welcomed the committee members and tabled a summary of points
for discussion, arising out of documents circulated previously.
Those present briefly introduced themselves and their areas of
expertise. A wide-ranging exploratory discussion concerned with
the purpose of the Guidelines ensued, briefly summarised here.
 
RC introduced the notion of an "application profile", that is, an
internally consistent set of definitions arranged in self-
contained hierarchic layers as a way of dealing with the wide
range of requirements anticipated from the other working
committees (WCs). SM saw the role of the committee as interacting
with the other WCs which would themselves produce application-
specific DTDs. NI stated that the TEI editors would need to
factor out common elements from these DTDs. MSM suggested that
the TEI could alternatively propose a 'syntax picking list'; JPG
that the committee should be prepared to create and maintain
libraries of syntax definitions, entity repertoires and dtds.
RC was concerned that WCs would be overwhelmed without some way
of structuring their tagsets. MSM observed that some mechanism
was needed capable of combining different views of items at the
same hierarchic level and enforcing any compatibility rules that
might be defined. JPG stated that this was a semantic issue; SM
that it was application dependent. JPG stated that the nesting of
theories should not be embodied in syntax rules; DB that this
could not in any case be checked, as the DTD-definer's
assumptions would not necessarily be apparent. It was agreed that
CONCUR, SUBDOC and \#CONREF provided useful ways of combining DTDs
into an application profile, and that the core-plus-extensions
approach would necessitate some sort of 'include' type facility.
It was also agreed that the primary purpose of the application-
dependent software for which the guidelines were envisaged would
be data interchange, and that optimisation would not be an issue.
 
\section{Document database}
SM's proposal for a TEI "document database" to contain instances
of DTD applications was discussed. DB and others felt that the
task of certifying DTD instances might prove too much in addition
to the committee's existing tasks. MSM and SM agreed that it
should be deferred.
 
 
\section{Committee ground rules}
\begin {itemize}
\item Committee procedure in the event of dissension was discussed. It
was agreed to follow the usual practices e.g. of ANSI and ISO
committees, where committee decisions and opinions are
distinguished from those of individual members. It was agreed
that a two-thirds majority of the membership was needed before
documents etc. could be agreed as adopted by the committee.
Documents agreed in this way would be passed to the editors, who
would submit them to the Steering Committee, which would then
pass them to the Advisory Board for endorsement. Some concern
being expressed about the varying backgrounds and expertise of
voting members, NI urged members to abstain from voting on issues
on which they did not feel themselves competent.
\item MSM introduced the TEI document numbering scheme. Each
document produced by the committee should be allocated a
sequential number by the Chair. It should have a prefix
indicating the committee from which it came (ML in this case) and
its type (e.g. D for draft, M for minutes etc.). Document TEI-A-1
lists available document codes.
\item It was noted that a list of all committee documents would
be centrally held (on the TEI-L server at UICVM) but only drafts accepted
by the committee would be generally available. Other documents
would be circulated by the Chair. It was requested that any
generally available files contain descriptive markup, e.g. GML or
LaTex.
\item A bibliography on the subject of SGML was felt to be
useful.
 
DB volunteered to take any existing lists and combine and extend
them.
 
\item MSM explained the current budgetary arrangements. Up to 50%
of travel expenses and a small per diem would be reiumbursed. All
receipts etc. should be sent to MSM.
\item The Committee should be able to report by June 1990.
Meetings were tentatively planned for 25th - 27th October in
Luxembourg (RC to arrange) and mid-February 1989, probably in
Chicago (MSM to arrange).
\end{itemize}
 
\section{Discussion of Draft Recommendations}
 
The document tabled by SM contained six specific recommendations,
which were discussed and voted on during the remainder of the
meeting.
\begin {itemize}
\item {\it We recommend that instances of DRTDs be developed
using a software environment specifically designed for this
purpose...}
 
The committee agreed with the sense of this recommendation but
felt that it was tactically inappropriate to begin the document
with it. It was felt that a better begining would be to stress
the importance of interchange in determining the recommendations
which were to follow. RC asked what types of text were
envisioned. NI quoted the Poughkeepsie statement that the
guidelines should focus on "extended natural discourse", possibly
extended to include dictionaries.
 
RC volunteered to redraft this first recommendation.
 
\item {\it We recommend that DTDs be developed using a software
environment specifically designed ...}
 
This was agreed.
 
\item {\it We recommend that the DTD definer use none of the
minimization features SHORTREF, DATATAG, OMITTAG, RANK or
SHORTTAG.}
 
It was agreed that DTDs for use in data interchange should eschew
the use of minimization features. It was pointed out however that
RANK has other functions, while SHORTREF and DATATAG greatly aid
the process of data capture, as do OMITTAG and SHORTREF which
also can be of importance in data compression. DB opined that
prohibiting all these features would need a "good sales job" for
those who wanted the interchange format to be person-readable. He
also suggested that the lengthy discussion of this point in TEI
MLW1 was unnecessary, partly because minimisation features are
specified in the SGML declaration which is independent of the
DTD. It was suggested that general guidance on the use of
minimization features in production systems might be useful. It
was agreed that DTDs for datacapture must be derived from DTDs
for transmission, with possible relaxation of the minimization
constraints expressed in this recommendation.
 
DB was requested to draft a document giving guidance on the
intelligent use of minimization features during data capture.
 
\item {\it We recommend that attributes not be used in the
declaration of DTDs or their instances}
 
JPG pointed out that support for CONCUR implied that content
(\#PCDATA) associated with a tag visible in one view might be
confused with content associated with another. SGML provided no
way, other than attributes, of associating content with a view;
only tags could be so associated. Alternative approaches (marked
sections, for example) were even more cumbersome.  Some of the
arguments for and against the use of attributes, which had
already been extensively presented before the meeting,
were reiterated. LB felt that more justification for the removal
of an existing and widely used feature was needed than that it
arguably introduced unnecessary complexity.  The committee voted
on MSM's proposal that the recommendation be dropped from the
document: this was agreed by a 6 to 1 majority.
 
\item{\it We recommend that the DTD definer avoid the use of
inclusion and exclusion exceptions when defining DTDs}
 
It was noted that model DTDs specified in Annex E of ISO 8879
actually contain inclusion and exclusion exceptions. The
committee recognised the dangers of allowing thoughtless use of
these features. Their prohibition however seemed to add to the
psychological complexity of DTD definition. It was pointed out
that while inclusion exceptions were a notational convenience,
exclusion exceptions expressed part of the content model which
might better be rewritten explicitly.
 
JPG was requested to draft a paragraph outlining circumstances in
which exceptions might be appropriately used.
 
\item {\it We recommend the use of the CONCUR feature}
 
This recommendation was agreed.
\end{itemize}
 
\end{document}
