TC M13: TEI Council Conference Call 20 Sept 04

The following were present during the call which started at 13:05 UTC: Syd Bauman (SB), Alex Bia (AB), David Birnbaum (DB), Lou Burnard (LB), Matthew Driscoll (MD), David Durand (DD), Julia Flanders (JF), Sebastian Rahtz (SR), Laurent Romary (LR), Susan Schreibman (SS), Natasha Smith (NS), Edward Vanhoute (EV), Perry Willett (PW), Christian Wittern (CW).

Actions from the previous meeting were reviewed:

• CW reported that John Smith had expressed concern at the slow progress made in acting on his group's proposals. LB apologised for the delay; he had now posted a suggestion for how the examples cited in the group's paper might be encoded. (Circulated to Council on 17 Sept). It was expected that JS would react to this proposal on the TEI-CHOICE list, of which he was already a member. SB then gave a brief summary of the issues currently under discussion on the TEI-CHOICE list: the chief issue was whether or not the semantics of the <choice> element were restricted to those of the

mirror tags in P4, or whether they should be expanded to include e.g. combinations of addition and deletion. LB27 sep 04 propose and document revised content model for <choice> to choice list; use date of members meeting as guillotine for discussion.

• The URL for the discussion of morphosyntactic tagging referred to in the previous minutes is: [http://www.isotc37sc4.org/doc/ISO TC 37-4 N046 Proposal_of_Morphosyntactic_annotation_framework.pdf](http://www.isotc37sc4.org/doc/ISO TC 37-4 N046 Proposal_of_Morphosyntactic_annotation_framework.pdf)
• The editors had attempted a revised preliminary timetable for publication of P5 (edw81.html), but not completed it satisfactorily. Council discussed the intended timescale for moving TEI P5 chapters to SourceForge, without firm conclusion. It was agreed that some global changes (e.g. from id to xml:id) should be made and possibly some material flagged with health warnings before moving to SF.
• JF reported that she and DD had discussed the somewhat daunting technicalities of registering TEI as a MIME type; she felt the action should continue but with a low priority.
• JF had not yet posted a Letter from the Chair, but intended to do so before the members meeting. She suggested that such notes should go out quarterly, with a preliminary request for input for them to Board and Council a week before hand: so agreed. SS asked about the status of SIGs which had been inactive since proposed at the last MM. It was agreed that SIGs had to make their own way in the world; also that it might be a good idea to remind Members that SIGs could be formed at any time; and how to do it. LB pointed to the material already on the website from the Nancy meeting.
• The action on the editors to draft document discussing relationship of TEI Header to other meta standards on the basis of material already available, to be handed to the TEI Libraries SIG for improvement and updating was not discussed; it is presumably carried forward

• DD gave an update on the StandOff Markup WG. The plan to produce a replacement draft for chapter SA by end of July had not been successful, but DD had sent a preliminary revision of the chapter to SB on 19 Sep. LB suggested and Council agreed that it would also be helpful to have an updated version of the Issues paper (/activities/SO/sow09.html) presented at the Gent meeting.

DD/SB 4 Oct 04 Post updated version of SOW09 to Council

SB/DD 4 Oct 04 Check in a valid and updated version of chapter SA

• SR presented the report from the Metaworkgroup, suggesting that the ODD system was now feature-complete and should not be further modified, other than for error fixing. The system supported all requirements so far proposed to the Meta workgroup. Council noted that there might be a requirement to further modify the ODD language as more use-cases were identified in testing, e.g. to support co-occurrence constraints, but agreed that it should be frozen for at least six months to enable testing to proceed.

• LR reported that the TEI-ISO workgroup had met in August in Paris, but that no changes relevant to the FS chapter of P5 had been identified. Some work remained to be done on the additional tutorial material and terminology of ISO DIS 24610, which Kiyong Lee and others have in hand. SB asked about the status of the Feature System Declaration: this had not yet been taken up by the ISO group, and the proposed new chair for this activity had not yet accepted the honour. Council felt that it would be useful to check whether or not the P4 FSD and the P5 FSR were interoperable.

LR1 Jan 05 investigate and report on any incompatibility between P4 FSD and ISO feature structure representation.

• MD reported that the Manuscript Description Taskforce had not responded to his request for comments on the draft circulated in July. There remained a small number of outstanding minor issues. Council suggested that the workgroup should be given a further two weeks to comment and to finalize the draft, after which it should be announced to the DM-L list and to the TEI Manuscript SIG as available for comment.

MD/DB4 Oct 04 finalize draft of MS

• JF reported that there had also been very little progress from the workgroup on Physical Bibliography, and that she would raise this with the workgroup head. It was suggested that some small and easily achieved goals might be addressed (e.g. page image handling), perhaps as proposals to SourceForge.

• Council then turned to the feature requests for P5 so far collected on Source Forge, and discussed what process should be used to evaluate them. Lack of time precluding a discussion of each one, the editors were asked to propose some way of handling them as a group, or of prioritizing them for attention. LB asked again for all council members to review the proposals and add a comment indicating their view. It was hoped that a useful summary could be presented at the Members Meeting.

Editors?To propose a method of managing SF feature requests so as to facilitate gathering of input from Council members All14 OctRead all feature requests and express an opinion on as many as possible

• CW would be making a single written report from the Council would be made, for which he again requested input from all active Council members.

All send material for Council report to CW

30 Sep 04

A provisional date of Mon 29 Nov at 1300 UTC was set for the next call.