todays meeting

[Syd Bauman]

First off, get well soon. Sorry you won't make the call.

<p>> Item 3. This is a real frustration, that we have not arrived at a
> decision on the New ODD language. This holds up the P5 work. I don't
> have any great answer ... I personally want to see
> * a decision on how to rewrite the ODDs in a form which be used >
>   to generate Schemas

But I don't think we should expect much help from the Council here. I
think you, Lou, and I need to come up with one or more concrete
proposals from which the Council can choose. I say this in part
because I feel that many are still somewhat mystified by the ODD
system -- how it works and what it does. (BTW, it is completely
documented, or at least a previous incarnation of it was completely
documented, in http://www.tei-c.org/Vault/ED/edw29.sgm or
http://www.tei-c.org/Vault/ED/edw29.tar.)

<p>> * a resolution of the namespace issue. do we hitch our wagon to that
>   star?

This, in my not-quite-well-enough-educated opinion is tied closely to
the questions of DTDs and future support for SGML, and is really the
major Council question that, if unancwered, will be holding us
(Editors + Sebastian) back.

<p>> Item 6. I already gave some thoughts on this last night. I don't
> believe it is the right way forward. First we need to decide
> whether the TEI needs a chapter on graphs and trees; then we need
> to review the literature to see what else is available; then
> (maybe) we work out a language which maps to SVG. Patrick seems to
> want to dive straight in at the end.

FWIW, it is not at all clear to me that TEI should have a chapter on
graphs and trees. It is clear that if we do, it needs to provide a
mechanism for a somewhat abstract description (SVG may not be
sufficiently abstract, idunno), and if it's *not* SVG, it needs to be
transformable into SVG easily.