Minutes for June 2, 2009

'Attendees: 'Syd, Kevin, Glen, Perry, Rich, Michelle <br? Note taker: Michelle

profileDesc/langUsage

• ident attribute is required for language codes
• should the element have content; schema allows empty element
• Kevin thinks it's redundant to have human readable name
• In P5, met to record language information not available by the tag itself;

you might want to say something about colloquialisms, accents, etc.

• In P5, it is meant to precisely define percentage of languages represented
• Use language as empty element with percentage of usage
• Talk with the TEI about changing how it's done
• Glen: gather language from a MARC record; but value we could never get without getting an external look-up (thus support for the empty element)
• Glen: Useful for level 4 or 5 text?
• If providing header by hand, would they want to annotate so allow for both (empty element and prose description)
• Kevin: Don't need to bother to provide content if ident value is sufficient

idno in sourceDesc

• typo in idno description
• stuart yeats was wondering about local numbers
• have all sorts of identifiers here with three frequently used examples
• is it required?

Define Elements as Optional in Header

• Header annotations may need to clarify when elements are optional
• Issue may be forced when creating the ODD
• Syd will email Kevin when ODD work begins about what is optional or not

Workflow

• Revised rationale description of level 3 (thought the wording was ambiguous)

Level 5

• Glen: Does level 5 need a workflow section?
• Glen removed the rationale sentence in level 5.
• No need to represent workflow for level 5
• We should review the level 3 rationale and workflow

Relationship between level 3 and Tite

• Kevin explained the relationship between the best practices and Tite
• Perry Trolard explains in revised Tite, there are a few elements missing in level 3 but exist in Tite
• In title (phrase level), title element, foreign, and genre specific (sp, speaker), cols
• Making it optional we can give them wiggle room; level 3 is less coherent
• Tite to level 4; Tite uses i for italics and b for bold; q for quoted material, no corr/sic/choice in level 4
• cols is a separate category; structural (mark column layout)
• dan o'donnell would like a cleaner mapping
• Glen: abstract beauty in Tite lining up with the best practices
• Level 3 is problematic historically
• Level 3 is structural, minus content analysis (or phrasal-level encoding)
• Kevin is leaning toward leaving things as they are
• Leave level 3 as-is
• TEI Tite lives between level 3 and 4 (vast majority is structural)
• Kevin added this statement already; may revisit the reason why it's mostly structural

editor v. respStmt

• based on the TEI-L discussion with the "translator" example
• can use role attribute on editor to identify illustrators, translators, etc.
• editor element has role attribute and give suggested values (not a closed list)
• advantage of doing this, the headers are more machine readable (adds structure to the data)
• if all is respStmt, look for free-text "illustrator"
• how do to a CV for content of resp or respStmt (Syd thinks it's possible)
• In P5 guidelines, example values are at least established
• We need to disassociate use of the element name
• Syd: what ever constraints to be placed in editor/role can be done with respStmt
• respStmt supports transcription on the page
• Syd and Kevin will continue by email
• Syd: It doesn't matter which one is used so long as we are consistent; Syd doesn't like the use of editor to represent translator
• P5 has a loose interpretation of editor
• Alternatively, tighten up the editor element (make it less open than P5)
• More specific scope for editor element (?)
• Require use of attributes that are not required in P5
• Glen: Narrow editor and be more specific in respStmt for non-editors
• Kevin will make the change (with examples of what kinds of content goes in a respStmt)

Action Item Issues

• Always use level in title even if it can be inferred (in the Header)
• Kevin reworded the rhetorical questions (list of bulleted examples instead)
• ToC examples reworked to use ref instead of ptr
• toC and list of illustration as optional
• added section of key/ref (pending email to Syd to make sure technical underpinnings are clear)
• local scheme clarification under General Rec is done under ref/key
• Kevin rewrote discussion of external metadata; done.
• expanded discussion on rend/rendition; rend for one case and rendition for the other
• Hyphenation: Kevin emailed Syd and Perry last week and came up with a solution
• Kevin looked at Tite
• Perry thought Tite was making vendor doing stuff they would have trouble doing and automation issues
• How well can OCR software
• Propose levels 1-3: all hyphen is retained as in the print source; use hyphen character (cut down in retrieval if you have a dumb search algorithm)
• If converted from Tite to level 3, you throw out the Tite encoded hypens
• At level 4, disambiguate hyphens (suggest a method or two for dealing with soft hypens; or throw away hyphen)
• Rich: recommends that hyphens by disambiguated in level 3
• Syd: argues that the differentiation is structural at level 3
• Not sure what to do with level 3.
• Level 3 should be optional for disambiguating hyphens