Minutes for April 14, 2009

Michelle Dalmau (co-chair), Kevin Hawkins (co-chair), Syd Bauman, Matt Gibson, Chris Powell (notes), Natasha Smith, Perry Willett, Rich Wisneski, Glen Worthy

1. Goal: get through BPG Feedback on Complete Draft -- run through items, ignoring copyediting issues. 2. Should we break the general recommendations into subsections? It is growing long. Partly done. 3. Let's not mention. 4. No loose Ps floating in encodingDesc. 5. How to handle the MARC statement of responsibility in teiHeader? We keep 245c in title at Michigan. Is that inexcusable tag abuse? How about a separate ? 6. Chris will make a sample METS file from one of the sample documents, if Indiana doesn't have suitable examples (they are dense, Michelle says). Syd is not comfortable with the use of xml:id in this description. Make sure the description doesn't give the impression of pointing out. Michelle explained the use of fileSec and structMap, as a way of pointing to and ordering page images. Kevin understands Syd's concern and will review. 7. Automated workflows:  because we have markup artifacts in the examples, should we explain the workflow? For example, the keyed head in the level 2 document with the OCRed text of the same. Michelle suggests the use of comments here that might help for people who look only at the examples. Syd concerned about duplication for people interested in word counts. Rich asks, are two examples redundant? Syd says, why not make it more generic, more or less a pure template? 8. Level 3: Notes -- is this backwards? Which way should things point? Notes point to the anchor in the text, as per TEI. Michelle asks for an example. N attribute for lines and line groups not explained. Creeping close to higher levels. Omit? Yes. Also move index markup issue to level 4. We should say that level 3 isn't designed for this level of markup -- transcribe but not encode. The ToC is probably the outlier here -- that is worth the effort. People are changing the examples to differentiate more. Make sure to change full examples when changing snippets. 9. Level 4: General recommendations are getting beefy again. Michelle broke up some things, like name tagging. Letters -- epistles vs. quoted letters in novels, for example. Maybe change the heading to embedded text and preserve the letter as an example of embedded. If you need internal structure, you will need floatingText, whether or not it is within a quote. Are we differentiating at this point? Long discursion on q and quote. Kevin will clarify. Verse: what about the typographic milestones? Syd says Women Writers sees these as indicative of an LG, but likes the with the content as the content. 10. Move the guidelines for attributes into the general recommendations. 11. Let's get the revisions in place by the end of the day Wednesday, okay?