Terminology chapter in P5

[Laurent Romary]

Thank you Syd for summarizing the issue. Let me add some complementary 
thoughts (I suggest to drop option 1 and 2: there seem to be a 
consensus on that):
- in the case of choosing option 3: TBX is the best candidate (it is 
indeed 16642 compliant, and ISO 12200), but has too wide a scope and 
may not be that useful to TEI users. A kind of basic terminological 
subset for dummies should be considered
- as for option 4: I would probably have the knowledge but not the time 
in the coming weeks: what would the agenda be if we were to consider 
this last option as viable?

Lou and I will meet Sue-Ellen Wright in a few days somewhere in Corea: 
I suggest to keep one meal on that with her and take a final decision 
there.
Best
Laurent

Le dimanche, 25 jan 2004, à 15:24 Europe/Paris, Syd Bauman a écrit :

> lb> When this matter was last raised, over a year ago, the editors
> lb> were asked to find out whether anyone was using it in its current
> lb> form, and duly canvased the TEI List. From memory, one or two
> lb> respondents expressed interest in the area covered by the
> lb> chapter, ...
>
> To be precise,
>
> * 1 person interested in response, as he plans to mention this tagset
>   in a talk;
>
> * 1 poster's students use it in a course, but he seems to prefer
>   an AFNOR recommendation (which I think is the equivalent of one of
>   the ISO specs mentioned below, but I'm not sure);
>
> * 1 project actually using it for an Italian youth language database;
>
> * 1 consultant who has a client happily using the tagset, but the
>   client won't permit the consultant to talk to us about it; and
>
> * 1 user thinking about using it, sought (and got -- thanks Laurent!)
>   advice on TEI-L.
>
> I think that's it. Did I miss any?
>
>
> lb> I think the choices are:
> lb>  1.  Leave it as it is
> lb>  2.  Remove it
> lb>  3.  Replace it with a brief paragraph which points to ISO 12200,
> lb>      and explains how to embed XML documents from another namespace
> lb>      in the TEI
> lb>  4.  Replace it with a new chapter which presents in TEI-P5 style a
> lb>      generally useful subset of 12200, or a tagset compatible with
> lb>      same.
>
> lb> Option 1 is a non-starter, I think.
>
> Right, we can't leave it as is.
>
>
> lb> ... Option 2, which I also feel decidedly uncomfortable
> lb> with (though less so than with option 1)
>
> I agree with Lou; I think option 2 only makes sense if we plan to
> stop supporting terminological databases altogether (i.e., for future
> releases of the Guidelines, too). Someone (Laurent? Lou?) has said
> that TEI should continue to support termbanks, as it's right up our
> alley. But see below.
>
>
> lb> Options 3 and 4 both require effort from someone, and I don't
> lb> know who is likely to be able to provide it.
>
> How much effort are we talking about? At least option 3 seems like it
> wouldn't be all that hard. Especially if the explanation of how to
> embed XML documents from another namespace into TEI was broken off
> as a separate (more general) discussion, and this chapter simply
> pointed to that discussion and provided an example.
>
>
> It seems there are already a lot of available formats for this kind
> of stuff (OLIF, ISO 12200 aka MARTIF, Geneter, TBX, XTL; some of
> which probably conform to TMF aka ISO 16642, some of which are
> probably outdated, even if I have all this alphabet soup right),
> about which I know almost nothing. I wonder which of the above
> options is actually more of a service to the termbase using
> community? If option 3, is MARTIF better than TBX or the others?
>
>