conference call (fwd)

[Christian Wittern]

John Unsworth <jmu2m at virginia.edu> writes:

> Council voted to accept the RFP (with thanks), pending revision of the 
> generic plus two specific RFPs into one general-purpose rfp, with slots for 
> the details of specific opportunities, as they come up.  Geoff will talk to 
> Martin about the specifics of MM2002 on June 28th, and in a week (July 1) 
> will provide the RFP to Oxford, for the web site. Thanks to the training 
> group for producing these drafts, and for promoting the idea of the
> RFP.

I might not be completely awake yet, but I can't seem to figure out
what a RFP is.  (I did manage to expand MM2002 -- CW) On a third
thought, is it similar to a CFP?

<p>> Council agreed, on the question of certification, that it prefers the idea 
> of reviewing software to the idea of producing a test suite or certifying 
> software.  Therefore, we will produce a call for reviews (Matthew and Syd), 
> and collectively encourage knowledgeable individuals to submit software 
> reviews to TEI-L, and the TEI webmaster will cull from those reviews to 
> post on the web site.

Does this has to be an either or?  With something as complex and
diverse as the TEI set of DTDs, I can't really see how a review could
provide much more than a general thumbs up or down.  The needs I have
differ substantially from the average TEI user (if such an animal
exists -- I personally haven't yet encountered one), but I would be
happy to provide the necessary files for a test suite that check for
all kinds of CJK compatibility.  While it might not be feasable in the
short term, I hope that we can keep the production of a test suite as
a future work item.  

> On P5, the Council voted to accept the work items and schedule proposed in 
> Sebastian Rahtz's email to the council, dated Mon, 24 Jun 2002 00:25:15 
> +0100.  Sebastian will contact Peter Robinson (or Syd) to talk about 
> fitting in a report on these items at MM2002--particularly Son of ODD, and 
> the general outlines of revision for P5.  Thanks to Sebastian for drafting 
> a schedule and overview of tasks.

Sebastian brought up, among other things, interoperation with W3C
standards.  Has there been any further discussion about that?  I would
be especially interested to know what the Council things about the
future interaction with the CSS group of recommendations.  Do we
propose to use them in any specific way (for example as the content of
the "rend" attribute, announced somewhere in the header).  I certainly
feel the need for some more formal declaration of this.  [and, to come
back to the test cases issue, I think test cases really make only
sense if we have some kind of overall processing model where we can
say 'under these and these conditions, we expect to have this and that
result' -- but currently the overall model is far from being clearly
specified.] 

>
> On MSS description, Merrilee and Matthew expect to be able to provide a 
> completed report and set of recommendations by MM2002, and the Council 
> expects to vote on them, as integrated into P4 by Lou, at its January 
> meeting.  JU offered funding for travel, if it were necessary to complete 
> this work.  Thanks to Merrilee and Matthew, and also esp. to Consuelo 
> Dutschke, for moving this process along.
>
> On character encoding: Lou estimates that this workgroup will keep to its 
> schedule, producing a draft report by MM2002, and a final set of 
> recommendations by the January Council meeting.  Thanks to Christian 
> Wittern for keeping the group on task and on time.

OOh? I have to admit that I am far less optimistic.  While we might be
able to produce some kind of report, I am not so sure about the final
recommendations.  There are a lot of issues far from being solved and
some architectural decisions will depend on the development towards P5
as a whole. 

All the best,

Christian


-- 

 Christian Wittern 
 Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University
 47 Higashiogura-cho, Kitashirakawa, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8265, JAPAN