SIGcorresp Minutes 20111015: Difference between revisions

From TEIWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit

Joachim Veit (talk | contribs)

48 edits
Bwbohl (talk | contribs)
13 edits
No edit summary
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Participants ==
== Participants in the Wuerzburg Meeting, Oct 15, 2011 ==


* Fotis Jannidis (FJ)
* Fotis Jannidis (FJ)
Line 7: Line 7:
* Elena Pierazzo (EP)
* Elena Pierazzo (EP)
* Lou Burnard (LB)
* Lou Burnard (LB)
* Joachim Veit (JV) - head of meeting
* Joachim Veit (JV) - convener
* Martin de la Iglesia (MI)
* Martin de la Iglesia (MI)
* Stefan Cramme (SC)
* Stefan Cramme (SC)
Line 27: Line 27:
== Discussion <correspDesc> (or similar) ==
== Discussion <correspDesc> (or similar) ==


* current sketch:
* Sketch of the current situation:
** DALF as P4 customization offers a lot of elements for letter description
** DALF as P4 customization offers a lot of special elements for letter description
** Peter Stadler had put a customization (ODD) into discussion on the SIG:s mailing list, allowing for a core corresDecs inside tei:sourceDesc
** Peter Stadler had put a P5-customization (ODD) into discussion on the SIG:s mailing list, allowing for a core <corresDesc/> inside <tei:sourceDesc/>


* meanwhile EV and RVB (KANTL) have mapped DALF to P5, allowing for many of the dalf:letterDesc elemens in tei:msDesc in order to suffice the needs of their project; nevertheless they will contribute and are willing to receive input; mapping and ODDification of DALF-TEI could be completed by the end of the year
* Meanwhile EV and RVB (KANTL) are mapping DALF to P5. In P5 many of the former P4 <dalf:letDesc/> elements had already been included in <tei:msDesc/>; nevertheless an inventory of the remaining additional correspondence elements which should be part of a correspondence specific customization would be very useful for further discussion. Mapping and ODDification of DALF to TEI P5 could be completed by the end of the year
* Edvard Munch letters have been transcribed in perfect uncustomised TEI
* Edvard Munch letters have been transcribed in perfect uncustomized TEI, Hilde Boe should be asked if some examples may be published in the wiki for further discussion
* in order to assist further discussion a comparison of these three shall be made; EV and RVB volunteered
* In order to assist further discussion a comparison of these three solutions will be an essential prerequisite


'''=> PRELIMINARY GOAL: publish comparison on WiKi'''
'''=> PRELIMINARY GOAL: Publish a comparison of the three solutions on the WiKi (and later enlarge this collection)'''


* EP brought forward that in aiming for a feature request in TEI one will have to take into account
* EP brought forward that in aiming for a TEI feature request one will have to take into account:
** the current discussion on tei:msDesc in the SIG:manuscripts: introducing a tboDesc (text bearing object) in order to address a greater amplitude of "manuscripts"
** the current discussion about tei:msDesc in the SIG:manuscripts: introducing a tboDesc (text bearing object) in order to address a greater amplitude of "manuscripts"
** notions of forming a "superMetaSIG" in order to coordinate efforts in creating a "elephantDesc" (i.e. a common thing allowing for descriptions of as many textual sources as possible)
** the idea of forming a "superMetaSIG" in order to coordinate efforts in creating a "elephantDesc" (i.e. a common thing allowing for descriptions of as many textual sources as possible)
* FJ opted against starting with a "superSIG", before finishing the SIG:s work, as it is obvious that there will be no quick results, which would frustrate poeple
* FJ opted against starting with a "superSIG", before finishing this SIG:s work, as it is obvious that there will be no quick results, which would frustrate people
* RVB put in that defining a small set of elements would be more convenient for further generalisation and integration
* RVB put in that defining a small set of elements would be more convenient for further generalisation and integration
* SB pointed out that in the end a tboDesc could be the right thing and teh SIG should try to feed in specific things
* SB pointed out that in the end a tboDesc could be the right thing and the SIGs should try to feed in specific things
* EP from her TEI-council experiences things developed for a bigger things have been problematic and many elements have been depricated but cannot be dropped because of backwards compatibility; if the SIG goes that way things might be developed and then dropped  
* Based on her experiences with the TEI-council EP suggests not to strive after "big things" because one has to consider that backwards compatibility always prevents too ambitious solutions; if the SIG goes that way things might be developed and then dropped  
** as there will not be a modification ot tei:msDesc EP recommends aiming for a customisation
** As there will not be a modification of tei:msDesc EP recommends aiming for a customisation
* JV stated that as far as he understood, the wish for a subsetContainer for a very restricted info about letters has a consesus
* JV stated that as far as he understood, the wish for a subsetContainer for a very restricted set of new correspondence elements has a consensus


'''=> MIDDLE-TERM GOAL: publish a "official" customization'''
'''=> MIDDLE-TERM GOAL: develop a proposal for "official" customizations'''


== Discussion on future work ==
== Discussion on future work ==
Line 53: Line 53:
* JV asked for a taskforce and definition of some future activities
* JV asked for a taskforce and definition of some future activities
* RVDB hopes DALF will conclude their efforts in P5 mapping until the end of the year
* RVDB hopes DALF will conclude their efforts in P5 mapping until the end of the year
* FJ proposed a comparison of the two customisations and the P5-conformant encoding at Munch Letters; EV (DALF/KANTL) voluntered on setting up the comparison
* FJ proposed a comparison of the two currently discussed customizations and the P5-conformant encoding of the Munch Letters; EV (DALF/KANTL) volunteered on setting up the comparison
* JV called for examples in order to see the differences and supply other projects with some orientation and information for their work
* JV asked for examples in order to point up the differences and supply other projects with some orientation and information for their work as early as possible
** EV at the edition we started in march [PLEASES FILL IN THE URL] there you can see the XML
** EV at the edition we started in march [PLEASES FILL IN THE URL] there you can see the XML
* EP prefers a tighter plan that could even result in a porposal for a TEI-Microgrant
* EP prefers a tighter plan that could even result in a porposal for a TEI-microgrant
** e.g. the purpose of two days will be: "we collect letters and put them in the WiKi" or similar; someone will have to coordinate especially if the grant will come out maybe next month
** e.g. the purpose of two days will be: "we collect letters and put them in the WiKi" or similar; someone will have to coordinate especially if the grant will come out maybe next month
* LB proposed a more complete overview of how to edit letters as one would have to be very careful not to think these 3 will cover everything;
* LB proposed a more complete overview of how to edit letters as one would have to be very careful not to think these 3 will cover everything;
Line 62: Line 62:
* EP clarified that it should be about a starting point first
* EP clarified that it should be about a starting point first
* JV added as we are dependant on the SIG contributors, there is only a very small field of letters at the moment
* JV added as we are dependant on the SIG contributors, there is only a very small field of letters at the moment
** EP modern, renaissance and medieval letters are completely different
** EP: modern, renaissance and medieval letters are completely different
** SB interested in wether the TEI council will consider E-Mail as corresp or CMC (computer mediated communication)
** SB: interested in whether the TEI council will consider E-Mail as corresp or CMC (computer mediated communication)
*** EP the SIG has to define what they deal with
*** EP: the SIG has to define what they deal with
*** SB a guidance / thoughts from council will be interesting
*** SB: a guidance / thoughts from council will be interesting


'''=> MIDDLE-TERM GOAL: collect examples and find out what people have done'''
'''=> MIDDLE-TERM GOAL: collect examples and find out what people have done'''


* JV: for TEI-by-example it's a bit too early but how can we help people
* JV: for TEI-by-example it's a bit too early but how can we help people who want to start with new editions?
* LB: give the 3 examples mentioned above, one has to figure out which is best for own purpose
* LB: give the 3 examples mentioned above, one has to figure out which is best for one's own purpose
* JR's college is looking for a recommendation (editorial note: and certainly other projects as well)
* JR's college is looking for a recommendation (editorial note: and certainly other projects as well)
* LB: you must make an intellectual deciscion
* LB: you must make an intellectual deciscion
* EP: it's hard for the beginning; it's ultimately the rule to give something: "the best practice might be..."
* EP: it's hard for the beginning; it's ultimately the rule to give something: "the best practice might be..."
* JR would like to see recommendations because else people might loose interest
* JR: would like to see recommendations because otherwise people might loose interest
* JV many want to cooperate and with a common solution it's easier
* JV: There is a clear wish for cooperation between editors of correspondence and with common solutions this would be much easier
* LB: first common ground is TEI; a meta-recommendation could be a second step
* LB: first common ground is TEI; a meta-recommendation could be a second step
* FJ: common denominators work out of the box
* FJ: common denominators work out of the box
Line 81: Line 81:
* EP: sometimes you just want to do the thing everybody else does; I claim we should give guidance; there's nothing wrong with that
* EP: sometimes you just want to do the thing everybody else does; I claim we should give guidance; there's nothing wrong with that


'''=> MIDDLE-TERM GOAL: develope best practice models'''
'''=> MIDDLE-TERM GOAL: develop best practice models'''


'''=> LONG-TERM GOAL: make a compressed proposal (EP)'''
'''=> LONG-TERM GOAL: make a compressed proposal (EP)'''
Line 88: Line 88:
== other proposals ==
== other proposals ==


* SB will try to sprousse up peters ODD to make it work with the TEI a little better
* SB will try to sprousse up Peter's ODD to make it work with the TEI a little better
* SB proposed having discussion around the comparison as conference call
* SB proposed to make the discussions more visible by taking part in conference calls


== DISCLAIMER: ==
== DISCLAIMER: ==
If I got any of you wrong or mispelled your names please feel free to correct all of the above or contact me in order to do so --[[User:Bwbohl|Bwbohl]] 10:38, 20 October 2011 (EDT)
If I got any of you wrong or misspelled your names or anything else, please feel free to correct all of the above or contact me in order to do so --[[User:Bwbohl|Bwbohl]] 10:38, 20 October 2011 (EDT)
 
==  ==
 
* JV for TEI-by-example it's a bit too early but how can we help people
Lou Burnard:give 3 say you figure
Ritter: My college is looking for a recommendation
Lou Bernard: you must make an intellectual deciscion, sorry
Elena: that's hard for the begining
Lou Burnard: life's hard
Elena: it's ultimately the rule to give something, the best practice might be this
Ritter: If there's no recommendation, I say do what you want as long as I can process
Veit: many want to cooperate and with a common solution it's easier
Lou Bernard: of course; doing TEI-things; meta-recommendation
Jannidis: common denominator work out of the box
Vanhoutten: you will compromise yourself in using a set not fit; designing your own encoding solution is your scholarly work
* EP sometimes you just want to do the thing everybody else does; I claim we should give guidance; there's nothing wrong with that; guide us for the start
* SB will:
** try to sprousse up peters odd to make it work with the TEI a little better
** Input form dalf comparison is really useful; we should have discussion around the comparison, better of as conference call than e-mail because it's harder to put off
 
'''=> LONGTERM GOAL: survey what poeple have done, generate a proposal'''

Latest revision as of 22:26, 29 October 2011

Participants in the Wuerzburg Meeting, Oct 15, 2011

  • Fotis Jannidis (FJ)
  • Syd Bauman (SB)
  • Edward Vanhoutte (EV)
  • Ron Van den Branden (RVB)
  • Elena Pierazzo (EP)
  • Lou Burnard (LB)
  • Joachim Veit (JV) - convener
  • Martin de la Iglesia (MI)
  • Stefan Cramme (SC)
  • Jörg Ritter (JR)
  • Michael Huber (MH)
  • Mareike Laue (ML)
  • Sabine Seifert (SS)
  • Raffaele Viglianti (RV)
  • Sina Bock (SB)
  • Anna Maria Komprecht (AMK)
  • Benjamin Wolff Bohl (BWB) - minutes
  • some more that came in late, feel free to enter your name

Introduction (JV)

  • introduction of participants
  • survey on the developement and history of the SIG and topics discussed so far

Discussion <correspDesc> (or similar)

  • Sketch of the current situation:
    • DALF as P4 customization offers a lot of special elements for letter description
    • Peter Stadler had put a P5-customization (ODD) into discussion on the SIG:s mailing list, allowing for a core <corresDesc/> inside <tei:sourceDesc/>
  • Meanwhile EV and RVB (KANTL) are mapping DALF to P5. In P5 many of the former P4 <dalf:letDesc/> elements had already been included in <tei:msDesc/>; nevertheless an inventory of the remaining additional correspondence elements which should be part of a correspondence specific customization would be very useful for further discussion. Mapping and ODDification of DALF to TEI P5 could be completed by the end of the year
  • Edvard Munch letters have been transcribed in perfect uncustomized TEI, Hilde Boe should be asked if some examples may be published in the wiki for further discussion
  • In order to assist further discussion a comparison of these three solutions will be an essential prerequisite

=> PRELIMINARY GOAL: Publish a comparison of the three solutions on the WiKi (and later enlarge this collection)

  • EP brought forward that in aiming for a TEI feature request one will have to take into account:
    • the current discussion about tei:msDesc in the SIG:manuscripts: introducing a tboDesc (text bearing object) in order to address a greater amplitude of "manuscripts"
    • the idea of forming a "superMetaSIG" in order to coordinate efforts in creating a "elephantDesc" (i.e. a common thing allowing for descriptions of as many textual sources as possible)
  • FJ opted against starting with a "superSIG", before finishing this SIG:s work, as it is obvious that there will be no quick results, which would frustrate people
  • RVB put in that defining a small set of elements would be more convenient for further generalisation and integration
  • SB pointed out that in the end a tboDesc could be the right thing and the SIGs should try to feed in specific things
  • Based on her experiences with the TEI-council EP suggests not to strive after "big things" because one has to consider that backwards compatibility always prevents too ambitious solutions; if the SIG goes that way things might be developed and then dropped
    • As there will not be a modification of tei:msDesc EP recommends aiming for a customisation
  • JV stated that as far as he understood, the wish for a subsetContainer for a very restricted set of new correspondence elements has a consensus

=> MIDDLE-TERM GOAL: develop a proposal for "official" customizations

Discussion on future work

  • JV asked for a taskforce and definition of some future activities
  • RVDB hopes DALF will conclude their efforts in P5 mapping until the end of the year
  • FJ proposed a comparison of the two currently discussed customizations and the P5-conformant encoding of the Munch Letters; EV (DALF/KANTL) volunteered on setting up the comparison
  • JV asked for examples in order to point up the differences and supply other projects with some orientation and information for their work as early as possible
    • EV at the edition we started in march [PLEASES FILL IN THE URL] there you can see the XML
  • EP prefers a tighter plan that could even result in a porposal for a TEI-microgrant
    • e.g. the purpose of two days will be: "we collect letters and put them in the WiKi" or similar; someone will have to coordinate especially if the grant will come out maybe next month
  • LB proposed a more complete overview of how to edit letters as one would have to be very careful not to think these 3 will cover everything;
    • this would be wonderful but would need researchers and funding(EV)
  • EP clarified that it should be about a starting point first
  • JV added as we are dependant on the SIG contributors, there is only a very small field of letters at the moment
    • EP: modern, renaissance and medieval letters are completely different
    • SB: interested in whether the TEI council will consider E-Mail as corresp or CMC (computer mediated communication)
      • EP: the SIG has to define what they deal with
      • SB: a guidance / thoughts from council will be interesting

=> MIDDLE-TERM GOAL: collect examples and find out what people have done

  • JV: for TEI-by-example it's a bit too early but how can we help people who want to start with new editions?
  • LB: give the 3 examples mentioned above, one has to figure out which is best for one's own purpose
  • JR's college is looking for a recommendation (editorial note: and certainly other projects as well)
  • LB: you must make an intellectual deciscion
  • EP: it's hard for the beginning; it's ultimately the rule to give something: "the best practice might be..."
  • JR: would like to see recommendations because otherwise people might loose interest
  • JV: There is a clear wish for cooperation between editors of correspondence and with common solutions this would be much easier
  • LB: first common ground is TEI; a meta-recommendation could be a second step
  • FJ: common denominators work out of the box
  • EV: you will compromise yourself in using a set not fit for your purpose; designing your own encoding solution is your scholarly work
  • EP: sometimes you just want to do the thing everybody else does; I claim we should give guidance; there's nothing wrong with that

=> MIDDLE-TERM GOAL: develop best practice models

=> LONG-TERM GOAL: make a compressed proposal (EP)


other proposals

  • SB will try to sprousse up Peter's ODD to make it work with the TEI a little better
  • SB proposed to make the discussions more visible by taking part in conference calls

DISCLAIMER:

If I got any of you wrong or misspelled your names or anything else, please feel free to correct all of the above or contact me in order to do so --Bwbohl 10:38, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.tei-c.org/index.php?title=SIGcorresp_Minutes_20111015&oldid=10277"