Minutes from June 2, 2010

attendees: Syd, glen, natasha, michelle, melanie, perry, kevin, lisa (notetaker)


 * Discuss options for further work by Michael on Thutmouse (SIG grant)

Agree on option E for tei-marc mapping approach for the

Discussion of point "C" -- beautification is likely to be a losing battle

thutmouse (see documentation) -- do we have a testing scenario for what Michael has already done? Kevin provided Michael 1,000 MARC records to test (see also January 16 email from Kevin); tools page

Option E includes only A & B (does not include C & D); Kevin will contact Michael and let him know

We can compile feedback related to C & D aspects, even though we're not asking Michael to do any further work on that. We'll probably have feedback, and if Michael can't work on them, we can save them for later


 * Add support for all MARC fields mentioned in the Best Practices and for all three mapping variants (source, tei-from-source, and tei-from-digital). Option includes A & B as detailed in the grant.


 *  Review pending issues; assign tasks to group members (see http://wiki.tei-c.org/index.php/Talk:Best_Practices_for_TEI_in_Libraries)

''' Syd registers a minority opinion. Discussion ensues. Look at attributes we have used so far in the Best Practices. 438 attributes in TEI P5 -- some of these are repeats in different modules choosing what attributes we're going to allow in the TEI for Libraries BP Michelle will revise language to flag it as something we need to come back to. Lisa will take a first pass at the list of all attributes and strike through
 * ''' Discussion of whether to Include All OR Specify P5 attributes within &lt;text> link


 *  publication statement structure link

Because publication statement is only used in File Description (i.e., NOT in Source Description), then there is no conflict here. The guidelines stand as they are.


 *  &lt;meeting> link (that section says there’s e-mail from Kevin on 10-12, but I haven’t found it yet — Syd)

Do we want to keep the meeting element or no? We agree to allow meeting in the teiHeader Discussion of where the meeting might occur in the MARC; Kevin will check in with Renne at UNC-Chapel Hill


 * &lt;appInfo link (I think we may be able to just resolve this on the call — Syd)

It's not likely that this tag will be used. So, we will exclude. If someone wants to use it, they will need to say, "I'm using BPG Level 3 plus appInfo."


 * v. 3 hx link

Michelle will do a draft on completing this section. (We're up to Minneapolis)


 * Tite == 3.5 ? link

Michelle wrote some stuff up in the Talk page to develop this. Michelle tried teases out -- see the "pending review" Introductory Prose FYI, the Tite Spec is undergoing review. Level 3.5 = TEI Tite will be a sidebar Kevin will take a look at Michelle's revision. All please take a look at Michelle's revision. We don't know when TEI Tite will be a stable spec


 * hyphenation link (I think we may be able to just resolve this on the call — Syd)


 * odds issues link

Syd is going to revamp the ODDs, so we don't need to

1st Deadline: have a call within the next two weeks; Please try to have your "to do" items done in time for the next call. Michelle will send out a Doodle poll. CDL can provide conferencing support for now; Perry will coordinate. Kevin will ask Michael whether having our work done by early fall will give him time enough to complete his work by the end of December 2010 (when we need to have spent the SIG grant money by). Michelle is going to talk to Rachel Frick (new leader of DLF) about continued support for the BPG group.
 * Determine timeline