[tei-council] the xpointer comments

[Martin Holmes]

We have had some discussion on the TEI-SOM list following the Oxford 
meeting, starting here:

<http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1209&L=tei-som&F=&S=&P=66>

Gaby asked me to summarise my issues with it, which I did, and Hugh 
responded in some detail. In that discussion, I think this is the 
clearest statement of my position:

<http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1209&L=tei-som&F=&S=&P=5669>

and Hugh's response to that answers some of those objections, but 
largely by saying that much of what I worry about would be 
implementation-dependent and outside the scope of the specification. The 
implication seems to be that what you get when you process one of these 
pointers will differ radically depending on the implementation; that 
seems to me to be a fundamental problem, but clearly Hugh doesn't think so.

Syd said he was going to look at the proposal, but it looks like he 
hasn't had time to do so yet. I also think his input is essential. I'm 
looking forward to seeing what comes out of the TEI meeting (which I 
can't attend, unfortunately).

Cheers,
Martin

On 12-10-23 06:02 AM, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
> I think the consensus in Oxford was that PB, LB, and GB would respond to
> the draft proposal in Google Docs so that HC and/or others could submit
> a revised proposal for Council to consider again.  However, if PB, LB,
> and GB feel they can't respond to the draft in its current state, or
> could do so more effectively if they just talked it over in person with
> Hugh Cayless and Syd Bauman in person -- and if we know that they'll be
> in College Station -- then I see no reason not to discuss it in person
> with them instead.
>
> In any case, it's obviously not going to happen by the end of October.
>
> --K.
>
> On 10/23/12 7:50 AM, Piotr Banski wrote:
>> In the wiki, at the top of the Actions page, we say:
>>
>> "Council members (e.g. PB, LB and GB) will add comments directly to HC’s
>> original proposal by the end of October, and then we will be happy to
>> receive any further drafts of it."
>>
>> http://wiki.tei-c.org/index.php/Oxford2012-Actions
>>
>> I was wondering: can we move this to the end of November, and first hear
>> what Hugh has to say about that at the TEI-MM, and discuss it, at least
>> in part, there on the spot?
>>
>> I'm now taking on my tickets, then it's release time, then the
>> preparation for the MM talk and the SIG meeting (and I'm flying to the
>> States very soon, it's a joint work trip), and I just can't see the
>> possibility of getting down to preparing detailed remarks on this right
>> now (there's the day job to be handled before the MM trip, too).
>>
>> On another note, I would really like to see Syd involved in this -- I
>> believe his input to be quite crucial, given that he was the author of
>> the original TEI XPointer schemes.
>>
>> I am not even sure of the status of Hugh's proposal in the googledoc --
>> is this something submitted to the Council to act on, or is that an
>> abstract of his MM talk? If the former were the case, I could understand
>> why the Council would delegate its three members to handle it, but it
>> seems to me to be a sketch of a proposal only, and so I don't understand
>> why we should act on something that isn't in fact finalised before Hugh
>> presents it at the MM:
>>
>> http://idhmc.tamu.edu/teiconference/program/papers/session-1b/
>>
>> So once again: can we say
>> a) please submit a concrete proposal
>> b) "end of November at the earliest"
>> , there?
>>
>> Otherwise, it seems to me that we may act on this as fellow researchers
>> and members of a WG, but not really in our capacity as members of the
>> Council.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>      P.
>>

-- 
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
(mholmes at uvic.ca)