[tei-council] delayed note for reviewers

[Lou's Laptop]

I've just remembered that this listserv not only declines to forward 
notes with attachments, but doesnt tell you that it hasn't.

Which is why the following (cut and pasted this time) didn't get to you 
36 hours ago....

As promised earlier, here's a draft of the letter Matthew and I are 
proposing to send out to potential reviewers of the MS chapter.  
Comments and suggestions for improvement gratefully received: we need to 
get this rolling in a week or so though.


Lou


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes for Reviewers of P5 drafts

Thank you for agreeing to participate in a formal review of a new or
significantly changed section in the TEI Guidelines. Your input will
be of great assistance to the TEI Editors and the TEI Technical
Council in the production of TEI P5, and is much appreciated.

You are encouraged both to make general comments about the usability or
relevance of the draft material under review, and to make specific
suggestions for any changes you think advisable or essential. At this
stage, proof reading and reporting of typographic errors are of lesser
importance, but notification of any such errors will also be gratefully
received. 

The questions we would like you to address in your review are:

- coverage: does the draft cover all significant topics relevant to the
  subject matter? are all aspects of the topics addressed  treated
  adequately and consistently? 

- clarity: is the draft likely to be comprehensible to its intended
  audience? is its treatment of specialised topics accessible to the
  well-informed but non-specialist reader? 

- correctness: are the encoding techniques proposed in the draft
  adequate to the needs of the community? do you envisage any
  particular problems in converting between the draft's
  recommendations and any other encoding system commonly used in the
  field?

- consistency: is the draft internally consistent in its style and
coverage, or are some topics treated less adequately than others? are
the recommendations of the draft consistent in style and substance
with the rest of the TEI Guidelines?


Wherever possible, please supply clear indications of what in your
opinion is necessary to improve the draft. Specific suggestions are
much more helpful than general statements.

Please review the examples as well as the descriptive text: any
suggestions for additional or alternative usage examples for the
topics described are particularly helpful.

Please also, if possible, test the recommendations of the chapter in
your own TEI processing environment. To do this,we recommend you to
download and install a complete release of TEI P5, since there are
likely to be interdependencies between almost any part of the
Guidelines and any other, even for a relatively self-contained chapter
such as that on manuscript description. Information on how to download
is provided at http://www.tei-c.org/P5/index.xml and a more detailed
document on how to install the new system is in preparation (a draft
is available at http://www.tei-c.org/Drafts/edw88.xml).

The full release also includes some sample testfiles which may be
useful as a template for your own testing: look at the files in the
Test directory

If you plan only to review the prose of the
draft, then of course you need only access the relevant web pages at
http://www.tei-c.org/P5/Guidelines/

Your review can be as long or as short as you think fit. If you would like
to discuss aspects of the review with other specialists in
the field, please use the discussion list maintained by the TEI SIG in
Manuscripts <xref
	    url="http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=tei-ms-sig&amp;A=1">Join 
	    mailing list</xref>. 
Please send a copy of your final review to the address
editors at tei-c.org by 15 May 2005.