TEI-MS and MASTER

[Lou Burnard]

Dear Consuelo

Apologies if my remark offended: no slight was intended -- I do
distinctly remember approaching Merrilee before the Pisa meeting in
Nov and asking her to present the two dtds to the members meeting,
which she duly did, and which I assume was done with your knowledge!
During the council meeting after the presentations, Matthew made the
proposal which I was referring to, and which I must say I thought
Merrilee agreed to at the time (she was certainly present, as a member
of the council, as she was when the matter was touched on again at the
London meeting of the council). But I may be mistaken, and of course,
she is in any case fully entitled to change her mind, as are you to
propose some other course of action.

The one thing we cannot, in my view, continue to have is two DTDs. We
need to have a single set of proposals for incorporation into P5. I
don't think this is a difficult task to achieve -- it just needs
someone to get down to resolving the (really rather few) discrepancies
between the two. I would offer to do it myself, or ask Syd, but I
think this would confuse the matter when we come to do the integration
into P5 (with our TEI Editors' hats on), and in any case I think it's
important that both workgroups should have ownership of the proposal.

Whom would you suggest if Merrilee is not available? How about Eva
Nylander? Or do you think the idea of trying to reconcile the two
DTDs is dead in the water?

best wishes

Lou

<p>On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 08:09:32AM -0400, Consuelo W Dutschke wrote:
> John (et al.),
> 
> I'm grateful that Merrilee brought this up and was interested to read your
> answer:  like Merrilee, I was surprised to read Lou's comment about
> Matthew and Merrilee being requested by the Consortium/Council to
> reconcile our work group's dtd and that of Master, since no one had said
> anything to me or to Ambrogio about this.  One would have expected due
> process, if not courtesy to the TEI work group's co-chairs to discuss this
> with us first, before a public statement about reconciliation and about
> those charged with accomplishing it.
> 
> One small but significant correction to your message:  you referred to the
> one group as "Master" and to the other as "the US working group." Our TEI
> working group was not "US" but was very intentionally put together to
> represent a number of countries and to loosen an apparent Anglo-American
> bias to working groups, generally.  Hence the nationalities of those in
> the group are:
> Dutschke--American
> Kidd--English
> Nylander--Swedish
> Piazzoni--Italian/Vatican
> Proffitt--American
> Our funding came both from the TEI itself (international) and, indirectly,
> from the Mellon Foundation (private, not governmental).  Thus, while the
> Master project can acurately be characterized as European in its funding
> and its membership, the TEI working group is not "US."  I can appreciate
> that this wording was used fairly casually, as a shorthand designation,
> but I wanted to clarify the situation for the record.
> 
> Again, many thanks to Merrilee for bringing this up publically, and to
> you, John, for your words of clarification.  I hope that we can move
> forward successfully.
> 
> all best,
> \Consuelo
>