[tei-council] draft agenda for kyoto meeting

[Syd Bauman]

Christian --

I am submitting two thoughts for potential inclusion as items on our
agenda.


1. Regularization of Names
-- -------------- -- -----
I think that perhaps addressing the issue of regularization of names
should be added to the agenda. Ideally Council members should review
what's been suggested so far. This includes (but is not limited to)
the work that Julia & Perry did last year, and the conversation it
kicked off. (First post on the thread is at
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/pipermail/tei-council/2005/000600.html)
There are several other solutions that should be considered that,
IIRC, were not mentioned in this thread. Most were discussed prior to
it, I'm not sure when/where for some. Things like

a) <reg> on a par w/ the PCDATA inside name:
     <persName>Syd
       <reg>Bauman, Sydney D.</reg>
     </persName>

b) <reg> with a sister element inside name:
     <persName>
       <ZZZ>Syd</ZZZ>
       <reg>Bauman, Sydney D.</reg>
     </persName>
   where ZZZ could be "literal", "asIs", "diplomatic", "transcribed"
   or some such -- if it is "orig", then this is same as (e)

c) names *in* <choice>:
     <choice>
       <persName>Syd</persName>
       <reg>Bauman, Sydney D.</reg>
     </choice>
   
d) <choice> in names:
     <persName>
       <choice>
         <orig>Syd</orig>
         <reg>Bauman, Sydney D.</reg>
       </choice>
     </persName>

e) name *is* <choice>, as it were:
     <persName>
       <orig>Syd</orig>
       <reg>Bauman, Sydney D.</reg>
     </persName>

f) Sorry, no gaiji and no other languages in your
   regularizations:
   <persName reg="Bauman, Sydney D.">Syd</persName>

Ideally, we would leave Kyoto with an answer as to how the Guidelines
should recommend the encoding of the regularization of nameLike
things. 


2. Schematron
-- ----------
My recollection (which may be flawed) is that Council has never fully
addressed the question of including Schematron constraints in P5.
Sebastian and his META group have both created the capability to do
so, and proven that it can be done. (Command-line roma will extract
Schematron rules from the ODD files of Guidelines either on a routine
build of P5 or on customization.) I have made numerous suggestions of
places where Schematron rules would be (IMO) beneficial. (Most of
these were during last summer's attribute update effort.)

Personally, I would like Council to say "yes, Schematron rules will be
incorporated into the Guidelines", and then something like "New
subcommittee X should go off and scour the entire Guidelines and
ascertain all the places where such rules are a good idea", or "Syd
should go off and develop a set of proposed Schematron rules and
present them to Council by [date]" or whatever.