Minutes from February 10, 2009

Notes from conference call of Tue 10 Feb 2009
Meeting initiated at ~13:06 with MD, KH, GW, NS, PW, MS, RW, LM, and SB (taking notes).


 * The group learned that the discussion of L1 in has not been changed (at least by thte L1 subworkgroup) so far


 * SB suggested that we lean towards making changes directly to the wiki document, rather than inserting comments about changes. There seemed to be general agreement on this point.


 * MD reports has been working on L3, and has inserted some examples.


 * NS reports no editing to L4 yet, discussions will take place between NS and MG before the 02-24 conference call.


 * In response to a request, KH reiterated his suggestion that L5 prose be left basically as is, but a few examples be inserted. No dissent.


 * MD raised the question: at which level do , ,  go?
 * do we need a new level 5 (pushing 5 to 6)?
 * apparently some projects do what is basically L4 plus these naming elements
 * SB suggested that if we stick to the definitions of the levels, where the difference between L4 and L5 is (at least in part) that analysis at L5 is performed by subject experts, then these elements fall under L4 if it is someone other than a subject expert applying the encoding.
 * It was agreed that MD would “carve out” some prose for name tagging and then MD and NS would flesh out this discussion, trying to augment L4; they would thereby ascertain whether a new level is needed or not.


 * MD asked about examples: she's converted some L3.5 examples to P5. When do we put them in-line, when do we make them external (with a link from the document)? While no specific criteria were discussed, the general consensus is that many small examples (which may have encoding that is not relevant to the example stripped) are a good thing. In addition, a single link to a complete example per major section is a good idea.


 * We agreed that, in general, we will leave xml:id= attributes in the examples.


 * MD has a numbered &lt;div> example for &lt;floatingText>; in the &lt;body> inside &lt;floatingText> a division must be encoded as either &lt;div> or &lt;div1></tt> (i.e., *not* &lt;div3></tt>).


 * MD notes that with personal names there are also lots of related issues:
 * encoding regularizations
 * encoding normalizations
 * encoding sub-parts (fore name, surname)


 * MD asks about where to put things like (what used to be) the note on note in 4.3.4. In table or out? SB suggests out, with general agreement. On question of how to discuss this sort of thing (tips, as opposed to "you must") _I missed result of this discussion — Syd_


 * Suggestion to keeps tips within levels as much as possible. Could also include references from one level to another. (General agreement)


 * MD suggests the editors will organize sections and headers, etc. (General agreement)


 * On vs <respStmt>: KH and MS to re-write description of


 * On : consensus is that, e.g., Dickens is the in <titleStmt>.


 * We discussed the idea of having a pointer from a TEI header to a record in some other metadata standard. We agree that SB's suggestion of <classCode> is not right. Maybe feature request (general or specific mechanism?) Maybe ? We will have another call on Tue 2009-02-17 at 13:00 ET to discuss this. _(And other header issues? — Syd)_


 * Originally aiming for 03-31. Deadline moved up to 03-10 to have a completed draft, at least for editorial intervention, if not complete (i.e., post-editorial interventions).


 * To make available for public comment the plan is to copy HTML from the wiki page with View Source kinda thing


 * Ended at ~14:06.