[tei-council] Fwd: Re: TEI Object Working Group

[Lou Burnard]

If this question is asking whether or not Torsten's proposal is 
acceptable to the Council,  then I for one think it is. Could someone 
please put the proposal on the Wiki so that it can be reviewed and 
annotated? I'd be happy to be a member of the proposed working group.



On 06/03/14 23:10, James Cummings wrote:
> Dear Council,
>
> I realise that we never got back to Torsten and Oyvind about this proposal for theTEI Object Working Group.
>
> Can I poll the Council on the mailing list about the proposal?
>
> -James
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: tei-council-bounces at lists.village.Virginia.EDU [tei-council-bounces at lists.village.Virginia.EDU] on behalf of James Cummings [James.Cummings at it.ox.ac.uk]
> Sent: 11 January 2014 09:05
> To: TEI Council
> Cc: oyvind.eide at uni-passau.de; Torsten Schassan
> Subject: [tei-council] Fwd: Re: TEI Object Working Group
>
> Dear Council,
>
> I entirely neglected to forward this to Council and mention it
> during the TeleConference. Mea Culpa.  This is Torsten's WG
> Proposal (attached) for a TEI Object working group. It does not
> include any costings for a face-to-face, but I would suspect that
> it would probably cost less than 50% of a council face-to-face.
> (Since we could have less people attending it, institutional
> contributions, piggy-back on important conferences, or be in some
> central location.)
>
> Please read the attached proposal and comment back to Council
> list (but CC'ing in Torsten and Oyvind) during the next couple weeks.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> -James
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: TEI Object Working Group
> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:18:14 +0100
> From: Torsten Schassan <schassan at hab.de>
> To: <James.Cummings at it.ox.ac.uk>
> CC: <stefanie.gehrke at gmx.de>, <oyvind.eide at uni-passau.de>,
> <sebastian.rahtz at it.ox.ac.uk>, <lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk>
>
> Hi James, hi all,
>
> here are some ideas on how to structure the work on the object
> matter.
> It doesn't go very much into detail but summarises the
> discussions held
> in various meetings and proposes a schedule. No words about the costs
> here but financial help to meet f2f might be needed unless the
> interested people will meet at certain occasions anyway.
>
> I hope this will be helpful.
>
> Best, Torsten
> ===
> A working group (WG) on the <object> matter will have to consider whether
>
> 	* it will restrain itself to the description of objects that carry texts (in a broad sense) or allow for the description of objects of any kind;
> 	* it wants to incorporate the manuscript description elements in the content model of an <object> element (or the like, to be created). Such a hierarchy would follow the examples of the <person>, <org>, and <place> elements (ch. 13) which serve as a space to collect information about a person, organisation, or place and to which is referred by <persName>, <orgName>, and <placeName> elements.
> 	* the manuscript description elements could be extended to cover the description of objects of all kinds or whether the existing elements and the existing hierarchy of elements represent cataloguing traditions that make it difficult to cover other objects than (western medieval) manuscripts.
> 	* the fact that a description of an object could be either metadata or data has any influence on the structure of the markup of the descrription or whether the same elements could be used in either places. (i.e. relationship between TEI documents and objects)
>
>
> The WG has to take the following steps:
>
> 	1. get in touch with non-manuscript communities in order to find out about missing elements and attributes, needed or misleading structures within the description or the possibilities to use the manuscript description structures at all for their purposes.
> 	2. find out about the possibilities to just reword the chapter on msdescription and by this cover objects of other kinds
> 	3. decide upon the integration of the object description in the chapter on entities (person, org, place) or to leave it separate.
> 	4. prepare an ODD which represents the forseen changes
>
>
> Materials that have to be taken into consideration
>
> 	* http://sourceforge.net/p/tei/feature-requests/326/ to establish <listObject> and <object> for (real world) objects mentioned in texts
> 	* http://sourceforge.net/p/tei/feature-requests/187/ discussion on <objectType>
>
>
>
> Schedule
>
> 2014 Jan - 2014 Jul/Oct      Review of ch. 10 (msdescription) and exchange with non-mss communities, decision whether to integrate it in ch. 13
> 2014 Oct - 2015 Oct          establish a text and prepare ODD
>
>
> The WG should meet face-to-face at least twice in order to review the existing wording in the first step and finalise a proposal for the TEI Council in the second step.
> Possible occasions might be any major DH meeting, e.g. 26-28 March 2014 in Passau, 7-12 July 2014 in Lausanne, 20-25 October 2014 TEI MM
>
> The WG might have a look at the semantical representation of the description of objects e.g. through CIDOC-CRM.
> The WG might consider to propose a way to allow for negative expressions such as "There are no illustrations present".
>
>
> ===