[tei-council] genetic draft -- big questions

[Kevin Hawkins]

On 8/23/2011 10:27 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> Could I ask again for input from Council members on these questions,
> particularly no 2?
>
> There have been several postings on TEI-L in the last few days to which
> I'd have liked to be able to say "we're working on it, see this draft",
> but so far the only people to have expressed an opinion here (two of
> them) have said this document is not yet ready for a wider audience.
>
>
>>
>> 1. Is this draft headed basically in the right direction? If not, what
>> are the essential things that must change in it?
>
> 3 responses so far, all positive

I trust my fellow Council members' judgment on this matter and will 
abstain from voting.

>> 2. Should we announce the existence of this draft (AS A DRAFT) to TEI-L
>> now, or do some more fiddling with it first?
>
> 2 responses, both negative

I think that if there are things we have opinions on and the time and 
ability to resolve, we should do so before sharing more widely.

If, on the other hand, we are unable to reach consensus on our own or 
need additional input, I suggest putting up the draft in CommentPress or 
digress.it, encouraging the community to comment on it in order for the 
appropriate person(s) to revise before sending it back to Council for 
consideration.

>> 3. The draft still uses the name "<facsimile>" for the element which
>> contains an document-level tramnscription along with or independent of a
>> collection of images. The workgroup specifically said that they didn't
>> like this name, and it is also confusing for those who are accustomed to
>> the current P5 meaning for<facsimile>   . What name shall we use instead?
>> ("elephant" was what we said in Chicago, but I don't think that was a
>> serious suggestion).
>
> possibly an emerging consensus in favour of<sourceDoc>  vel sim

This sounds fine to me.