[tei-council] First draft of TC M 22, notes from Friday's call, are up

[Syd Bauman]

> - I think the necessary actions are
> (a) Council Members should review the wg outputs;
> (b) Syd should check the extent to which the outputs had been
> incorporated into SA and elsewhere in the Guidelines

I don't think I really need to check much:

* SO W 01 has been superceded

* SO W 02 provides rationale, not details, but that which it
  discusses is in P5.

* SO W 03 has been incorporated into P5

* The suggestions made in SO W 04 have not been incorporated into P5
  at all, and as far as I know no one except me (and perhaps David
  Durand and Lou Burnard) has even read this important document

* The meat of SO W 05 is advice and examples of linguistic corpora,
  which has not been folded into P5 at all, mostly because it needs
  some attention from someone with a stronger linguistic background
  than I

* SO W 06 is completely worked into P5 now

* SO W 07 is in the exact same position as Chris' other paper, SO W
  04, in that no one has provided feedback on it at all, and
  therefore I have made no attempt to put it into P5. The main
  difference is I don't think this one is a high priority. (I suspect
  there just aren't that many people encoding graphs at all, let
  alone with TEI.)

* SO W 08 has been incorporated into P5

* SO W 09, like SO W 02, provides a summary discussion for Council,
  not suggested additions to the Guidlines. Nonetheless, IIRC
  everything it discusses is in P5 now.


> - " ??_NEED_URL_HERE_??."  http://" ->
> http://www.tei-c.org.uk/wiki/index.php/FacsimileMarkup

Thanks! Fixed.


> I don't think this represents the discussion accurately. The idea
> was to request Council members (individually or as groups) to
> volunteer to "adopt" a module or two for classificatory activity,
> having first checked out the current state of play in edw84. They
> should then then send their suggestions to CW, who would publish a
> definitive set of assignments in consultation with LB.

You're quite right, I forgot the "folks are supposed to state which
module they'd like to adopt" part. But I guess I'm a bit confused:
are Council members supposed to volunteer for a module by going
through EDW84? Weren't you and Christian going to provide a concise
list of modules and a rough guestimate of how much work each needed
for Council members to use in deciding which module they'd like to
adopt? (I thought CW said he'd do that, and you said you'd help as,
now that you've put in all this effort on ST, you've a good notion of
how much work each module is likely to require .)

> These tasks need to be done fairly quickly, and I thought we had
> agreed on some dates, but I foolishly didn't write them down.

I did, though. "1 week" for whatever the intermediate stage was, and
"the next week" for completing the adoption process, which is why I
wrote it down as 2006-03-11.

What I wish we had done is also hammer out a date by which module
adopters should post their suggestions -- 2006-03-25?


> - "report document" -> report

Fixed, thanks.


> "however, he does not want to post it to TEI-L until these
> formatting problems have been fixed." I don't remember Matthew
> saying that. Did he? The formatting doesnt look so dusty to me --
> it's quite readable anyway!

Yes, he did. But now that I've taken a more careful look at it, I'm
with Lou -- while it may not be perfect, it's not that bad. No one
expects tables that need to be that wide and contain all sorts of
markup like that to look wonderful, anyway.


> - Under P5, I would like the record to show that I specifically
> apologised for not having produced a progress report for this
> meeting and promisedn to circulate one for inclusion in the
> minutes. Which I did.

And did very rapidly, I will let everyone know. I've included a
statement to this effect in the first para under "P5", let me know if
it's satisfactory.