[tei-council] TEI for publishing: archival or interchange format? (was Re: What's next on the TEI publishing thread)

[Laurent Romary]

Even at this late hour in the day (for me), I like this formulation.
Thanks Kevin!


Le 1 sept. 10 à 21:23, Kevin Hawkins a écrit :

> Inserted a new last sentence in the "rationale":
>
> While it need not replace every publisher's XML workflow, some
> publishers currently using XML might even find that the TEI's robust
> infrastructure and community-driven nature allows them to better cope
> with deficiencies in their existing practice and participate in an  
> open
> community.
>
> --K.
>
> On 9/1/2010 3:01 PM, O'Donnell, Dan wrote:
>> I like that Kevin. I think the weaselling is pretty good and not
>> noticeable. I do wonder if we downplay (or at least don't emphasise
>> heavily enough) the real benefit that users of other formats might  
>> gain
>> from working with us.
>>
>> I'd say that things that would immediately strike me if I was reading
>> this as an outsider already committed to another format are: do they
>> want me to start encoding everything in TEI? And what do I gain
>> concretely in my workflow by dealing with these people.
>>
>> I suspect the answer is to make developing some transformation  
>> tools to
>> and from major alternative XMLs a key deliverable of the larger  
>> effort
>> (i.e. something we could participate in making?), and emphasing a  
>> little
>> more strongly that an ability to convert in and out of some standard
>> publishing customisation would allow content publishers an  
>> opportunity
>> to really take advantage of community-developed initiatives and
>> publication opportunities.
>>
>> I realise you make this last point to a certain extent. But I  
>> wonder if
>> it couldn't be hit harder.
>>
>> But really well done.
>>
>> -dan
>>
>> On 10-09-01 12:51 PM, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
>>> On 8/31/2010 4:48 PM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 31 Aug 2010, at 21:30, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Since I wrote most of the prose of the "call to action" in  
>>>>> Google Docs,
>>>>> let me try to clarify what I meant.  Sebastian thought that the  
>>>>> call to
>>>>> action is proposing TEI as an output format for sharing with  
>>>>> users,
>>>>>
>>>> not quite. I meant was it the format from which the readonly  
>>>> formats like
>>>> HTML and ePub are derived. I was distinguishing between the genuine
>>>> archive format (with all the markup, metadata and goodness) and  
>>>> the interchange format
>>>> from which one can make the output formats. Maybe the distinction  
>>>> is false, however
>>>>
>>>> But I would never propose TEI as a format for users, sorry :-}
>>>>
>>> Okay, I understand now.  I have not been making such a distinction,
>>> which is why I conflated "archive" and "pivot point" in my  
>>> document.  I
>>> avoided using the term "interchange format" because I find it  
>>> ambiguous:
>>> you use it as pivot point, whereas to me it sounds a bit like an  
>>> output
>>> format.
>>>
>>> I have revised to leave more wiggle room:
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ARyxZGtPbrQ1ZHYzZHg3aF8xNmZyYjR3emY4
>>>
>>> Is this better?
>>>
>>> Kevin
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tei-council mailing list
>>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>>> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

Laurent Romary
INRIA & HUB-IDSL
laurent.romary at inria.fr