TEI Council 2002-06-24 Conference Call Notes

Training

GR explained the training committee had written 1 general and 2 specific (for Chicago 2002-10, and for GA 2003) RFPs for training courses. Suggested that within a few weeks all 3 would be edited & posted. SB said the programme committee for the Oct member’s meeting would like that specific RFP out ASAP, preferably shortly after MMs return. GR thinks that’s reasonable (he will be talking to MM on phone circa 06-28).

Thanks to the training committee for this work.

Lou recommends that the three RFPs be combined into one; general agreement, there should be one RFP, with an appendix that gives particulars for upcoming events that require specific proposals. GR Inform training committee of recommendation from Council to combine RFPs training committee Combine RFPs into one general with reference to the two specific events, perhaps as an appendix. In retrospect, I am not yet 100% convinced of the wisdom of this, and plan to send the council thoughts on the matter if I am still unconvinced after discussing w/ GR. — Syd

GR notes that, esp. for proposals for training at the Oct member’s meeting, they do not have to be full-blown proposals. SB points out that programme committee is expecting a 1-day training on Thu 2002-10-10.

Although questions about an RFP may (or should) be sent to the training committee, and questions about the venue, etc., may (or should) be sent to the local organizer, the Proposals themselves should be sent to JU, who will forward them to the Council for [dis]approval.

Motion that amended (as discussed) RFPs be accepted; passed.

LB, SR1 July 2002 send a response to the general RFP for their 15 Jul course

certification

Software certification discussion: we’re leaning towards encouraging reviews of software (cull form TEI-L?) (certify reviewers? certify reviews?) MD, SB to proof if MD wants write a draft certification policy SR, LB

cull the list for reviews to put on website LB & SR — if you like, let me know when you’re ready to roll, and I’ll send you an archive of the list. — SB So we are shifting from certification to reviews.

core tags and schema

Discussion of SR’s proposal 2002-06-24 00:25+01— SB thinks timescale aggresive, but SR & JU think it’s reasonable (better to have too aggresive a deadline than none at all).

SB agrees strongly that TSD become an additional tagset, and that P5 be written in (possibly extended) TSD.

SR suggests Son of Odd report for members meeting 2002-10; SB suggests [dis]approval by Council in 2003-01; SR recommends including discussions of manuscript, char sets, standoff to that 2003-01 council meeting; MP reports manuscript should be ready.

Within the discussion there was concensus that it’s important to change from DTD notation to some other notation inside <elemDecl>s (whether a pre-existing schema or our own is still an open question), and to allow multiple schema output from odds (i.e., to give TEI users choice in which schema language they use to validate their TEI documents).

Motion to accept SR’s timetable as a framework approved.

SR talk to PR or SB about getting a timeslot to report on Son of Odd at 2002-10 member’s meeting in Chicago, perhaps as part of editor’s report. SB reports that he thinks the preliminary plan already has 20 mins for editors and a separate 20 mins for SR.

character encoding WG update

LB reports on char sets WG progress — lots of discussion via e-mail, mostly centered on how much of the world’s problems Unicode solves. Face-to-face WG meeting planned for 2002-07-23/24 in Tübingen (in conjunction with ALLC/ACH 2002). Both SB & plan to be present. WG is working on detailed proposals for a replacement to WSD mechanism which LB (& SB) expect will be discussed at WG meeting in Tübingen. CW doing good job keeping it going w/o domination by a particular person or constituency.

Council agreed that requirement for 1.5 days of meeting in order to obtain TEI reimbursement be waved, if needed, for this WG meeting. It was suggested that council need not vote, that chair could just do this unilaterally.JU Notify CW of relaxed restriction of 1.5 days for character sets WG meeting in Tübingen 2002-07. Since the council had agreed, I didn’t take up valuable phone time saying this, but I think it is important that no single individual have the power to unilaterally make exceptions to or grant exemptions from promulgated rules or procedures like those in ED W 54. I think that such decisions need to be reserved for the council or board, or for a pre-defined group of officers (chair and both editors; chair, executive director, one editor; chair, executive director, one host representive — idunno)

stand-off markup, xlink, xpointer WG

SB reported on WG progress by briefly reading some sections of DD’s mail to group 2002-06-19T16:31-04,: … it’s past time for us to start up. … trying to get John Garofolo of NIST to join the group; if he does not, I will entertain suggestions of corpus linguists who might join the group. … an email list, supplemented by a regular conference call … initial suggestion that the call be on alternate Wednesdays, starting on 2002-06-26, at 13:00-00. … attached the preliminary charge … Preliminary agenda:

• introductions
• proceedures: …
• time limit: …
• reactions to charge: …

Council wanted assurance that an editor would be available for each call; SB & LB do not think this will be a problem.

Someone voiced concern as to whether or not council should be worried about lack of progress — [preliminary or draft? — SB] report is due [2002-08-01 or 2002-10-11? — SB]. SB said no need to worry yet, but should recheck after [2 or 3] of the planned conference calls (and then become concerned if little or no progress). SB or LB (whichever one makes conference call) keep council posted on WG progress

medieval MSS description

While MP may not be at member’s meeting (snif! What’s wrong with a TEI meeting as a honeymoon? Well, congratulations in any case), she is still hopeful that she and MD can get together this summer to hammer out differences in manuscript description stuff.

next meeting, assignments, future business

Future meetings: We like conference calls; SB suggests one roughly every 3 months. JU schedule future council conference calls Perry is willing to continue hosting them. (And subsequently agreed to post notices in UTC, preferably in an unambiguous format).

SR points out we need to have firm deadlines before 2003-01 face-to-face, as it’s expensive.