[tei-council] nuncles and releases and TEI MM
mholmes at uvic.ca
Mon Nov 1 14:14:18 EDT 2010
Yes, it's 2976715. The discussion we had is more or less covered by the
comments. We all agree on the need for <distributor>, <principal>,
<funder> and <sponsor> to be available in <analytic>, <monogr> and
<series>, and the cleanest way to do that seems to us to be adding
<distributor> to model.respLike, and then replacing explicit references
to <author>, <editor> and <respStmt> with references to model.respLike.
Kevin also believes that model.respLike needs some work, but that's
beyond the scope of this ticket, and would almost certainly involve
breaking backward compatibility, so we've stuck with a recommendation
that solves the immediate problem and gives us a better starting point
for later work on model.respLike, should that be necessary.
I'd have to go back through a lot of email to compile an extra summary,
but I don't think you'd see anything that would convince you. I think
you just disagree with us on this, and it should go to a vote.
It was my mistake typing "LB" instead of "LR", but there doesn't seem to
be any way to edit a comment on SF, so there was nothing I could do to
fix it -- does anyone know a way to do that?
On 10-11-01 10:34 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> Hi Martin
> Are you referring to ticket *2976715? If so, my comment was just to
> point out that I disagreed with the recommendation, and hadn't been
> involved in its most recent formulation, despite what it says on the
> ticket. This doesn't seem like an inappropriate comment to me, and
> certainly isn't meant to preclude anyone else expressing their opinion!
> I do think this particular issue needs proper discussion, as the current
> situation is clearly unsatisfactory. If your "gang" has discussed it,
> maybe you could summarize that discussion to show what has led you to
> make your recommendation?
> * Martin Holmes wrote:
>> We (the biblio gang) posted our final recommendations to the council as
>> comments on the tickets. We assumed that the council would simply vote
>> on our recommendations, but on one of them, Lou has made further
>> comments, which seems to suggest that he believes we should continue to
>> debate them. Personally, I think we should just vote on the nuncles'
>> recommendations. For the biblio tickets, we're waiting to see the
>> outcome of the votes before we can continue with our larger review.
>> On 10-11-01 04:06 AM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>>> I am not sure Laurent said how he proposed to take the next stage in his nuncllng? what happens now that
>>> quite a lot of the work is done?
>>> Which brings me to TEI 1.8. If any new features are to be agreed for this release,
>>> it needs to happen very much NOW, in the next day or two. if some of the changes at
>>> http://wiki.tei-c.org/index.php/Council_FR_assignments are really holding up work,
>>> speak now…
>>> Which brings to the TEI MM. In the past, I think we have discussed the Council Chair's
>>> speech and its promises to the electorate. It would be nice to do the same this year?
>>> And one more thing - a quick council meet in Zadar to resolve some of these outstanding tickets?
>>> Sebastian Rahtz
>>> Information and Support Group Manager
>>> Oxford University Computing Services
>>> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>>> Sólo le pido a Dios
>>> que el futuro no me sea indiferente
>>> tei-council mailing list
>>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
(mholmes at uvic.ca)
More information about the tei-council