[tei-council] more on internationalization

[Christian Wittern]

Julia Flanders <Julia_Flanders at Brown.edu> writes:

> I would suggest that we make a longer list of languages in which we
> know text encoding work is being done (as determined, for instance, by
> the range of countries in which we have members), and use this as a
> master list to track our progress. That list could be cast into rough
> groups:
> --highest priority: languages where there is a great deal of TEI work
>   being done;
> --middle priority: languages where there is some TEI work being done;
> --low priority: languages where there is little or no TEI work being
>   done but where we believe there is potential;
> --not on the list: languages where we believe having a translation
>   would not have any appreciable influence at the moment
>   (e.g. Tlingit)

This sounds like a good strategy, except that I think it would benefit
from trying to be a bit more foreword looking by not only assess the
current membership, but also areas where the TEI sees a potential (or
a need) to develop more.  

I can tell you from years of experience that TEI is a hard sell in
China, Taiwan and Japan -- for many reasons, but prominent among them
the perceived un-accessibility due to text and examples coming from
western languages and perceived "centeredness in a western mind-set".
So while you will probably find Chinese and Japanese at the very
bottom of the list in terms of members from countries using these
languages, it would benefit the long-term strategy of the TEI to
consider these languages for the proposal, in the case the ALLC would
consider supporting them.  One could of course always say if they are
interested, they should be looking for their own funding
opportunities, but since they are not interested...  

Another possibility would be to offer a matching-funds scheme to
extend the reach we can have with this initial grant?

>
> Then submit a call and see what proposals we receive. We could fund
> all the proposals in our high-priority group, and keep the others for
> a more substantial EU proposal, or a proposal to another funding
> body. Creating a master plan in this way would help us make a
> persuasive funding proposal and also provide a sense of long-term
> goals and progress.

If we think of approaching the EU, languages that could not possibly
supported by the EU could be given a higher priority for the ALLC
proposal. 
>
> It may be in any case that the ALLC wishes to give priority in any
> case to European languages (I can check on this with Harold). I'll
> also check on the timeline to see whether this proposal can wait until
> P5 issues have been firmed up.

I think it is quite timely for this issue to come up now, so that we
can make sure P5 supports this kind of internationalization
technically and conceptually.  Hopefully the appearance of some
translations and their apparent usefulness will then spur others to
come.  

All the best,

Christian

-- 

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