Scholars working with textual material, like those working on mathematical, physical, or chemical problems, must thus find appropriate ways of representing or encoding their data (in this case, their texts) in forms suitable for mechanical manipulation. Typically, a scheme for encoding texts must include: Methods for recording the individual characters of a text. For European languages written in the Latin alphabet, the encoding of most characters is given by standard practices of the data-processing industry, but special encoding conventions may be needed for: diacritics, such as those needed for French, German, Spanish, and many other languages; the special consonants and vowels needed for other languages, such as the Scandinavian languages, Hungarian, Polish, or Turkish, or the medieval forms of other languages (e.g. Old and Middle English); punctuation marks conventionally used in some languages, but not present in modern data-processing standards: Greek colon, the various manuscript symbols used for Latin et, etc.; special symbols like the signs of the zodiac, chemical and astrological symbols, or simple line drawings inserted into the text by the author; characters distinct in Western printed books, but not distinct in modern data-processing standards (opening and closing quotations, the various forms of the dash and hyphen, ligatures, etc.), where the distinctions are important for the research being undertaken. Some character representation must also be found for texts in other alphabets, for which there may be no industry standards: a character code may be devised from scratch, or adopted from existing sources, or the text may be represented in transliteration. Special problems arise when texts include mixtures of languages and alphabets, e.g. texts in Hebrew and Greek with footnotes in Latin, or text in Armenian with Russian footnotes and a Chinese glossary. Conventions for reducing texts to a single linear sequence wherever footnotes, text-critical apparatus, parallel columns of text (as in polyglot texts), or other complications make the linear sequence problematic. Methods for recording the logical and physical divisions of the source text: e.g. book, chapter, paragraph, sentence; play, act, scene, line; or volume, page, printed line, etc., so that passages found by a search can be located in a printed copy of the text. For analytical bibliography, exact details of type usage in early printed books must be encoded, including details of ligatures used, justification of lines, font use, inverted letters, printers' ornaments, and devices. For numismatic or epigraphic collections, information of this type might become equally complex. Methods for recording linguistic and literary information important for scholarship, whether explicitly marked in the text or extra-textual: author, date, genre, sentence boundaries, syntax, dialect, direct and indirect speech, use of archaisms, scansion of verse, stylistic features, allusions and quotations, etc. Here the variety of elements to be represented is as great as the variety of approaches among those who use machine-readable texts. Conventions for delimiting comments and other material in the machine-readable file which is not strictly part of the text being encoded. The limitations of early keypunches and printers led early on to elaborate encoding schemes for character data: asterisks to signal uppercase letters, numeric renditions of accents, transliteration conventions for Greek and Cyrillic, and so forth. More recently, the production of large text corpora in a single encoding scheme

Among pioneering text corpora one may mention the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, the Brown Corpus of modern American English and its various supplements, and the Treasury of the French Language corpus of modern French materials.

For many years, scholars interested in the computer-aided analysis of texts being in a small minority both within computing and within the humanities, most projects began and ended in solitude. Into the 1960s and '70s many researchers developed their own software and even more their own (incompatible) systems of encoding, driven in part by the needs of their software and in part by the peculiarities of the individual texts they worked with.

Gradually, the community of potential users grew. Communication among those interested in the field improved. The potential uses of machine-readable texts were seen to extend beyond the production of printed concordances and to include literary and linguistic studies performed readily by machine but not readily or not at all by hand. As a result, interest grew in preserving machine-readable texts for later re-use, and the exchange of texts grew more frequent. This exchange, increasingly, is institutionalized in the form of large text archives, which hold and distribute copies of texts for computer-aided analysis, whether prepared elsewhere or at the archive itself.

The Oxford Text Archive, one of the first and largest of these archives, was founded in 1976. Other archives have appeared in many European countries, sometimes with specific linguistic or disciplinary limitations, sometimes without. While there is still no major general-purpose archive in the U.S., the American Philological Association does maintain a Repository of Machine-Readable Classical Texts, and a number of universities have begun to prepare and collect machine- readable texts.

Text exchange is still hampered, however, by the many and inconsistent schemes used to encode the texts in the archives. Many machine-readable texts, originally prepared for personal or local use, lack any formal documentation of their status or organization: what the codes mean, who encoded the text, what edition was used as the source, etc. Existing text archives do valiant work trying to document what they have and improve what they acquire, but the rise of computer use among humanists promises a flood of new machine-readable texts in the near future which will overwhelm our current ability to document and assimilate variations in encoding practices. Humanists' use of computers, especially microcomputers, has increased manyfold over the last two or three years, and one of the first thoughts of most humanists, when beginning to move from word processing to computer-aided research, is to begin typing into the machine the text or texts they are working on at the moment.

Similar problems in the social sciences have been successfully addressed by formulating standard practices for data representation and documentation. These standards are supported and adhered to by most major social-science data archives and statistical analysis programs, so that social scientists who use computers in their work face a less chaotic world than do their humanist counterparts.

A single lucid, compendious set of recommendations for encoding textual data in machine-readable form is essential, if the coming floods of machine-readable texts are to be usable by the entire scholarly community. The experience of the past four decades has laid an adequate groundwork for standardization: we know now many of the pitfalls to be avoided; the rise, in this decade, of new legions of computer users in the textual disciplines requires us to formalize that experience and point out those pitfalls now, so that those who create new texts—individual scholars working alone, and large archives engaged in mammoth projects, alike—can turn their minds to the problems that have not yet been solved, instead of (as the saying goes) re-inventing the wheel and running, as always, the risk of putting the axle in the wrong place.

It has become clear that in the textual disciplines, just as in the social sciences, secondary analysis will soon become—if it is not already—far more common than primary analysis.

Secondary analysis is analysis by scholars or parties other than those who first entered the material into machine readable form, and for purposes other than those first envisaged. Primary analysis is analysis by the original owner of the data, for the originally conceived purposes. In textual studies, secondary analysts (e.g. lexicographers) often need to aggregate a variety of independently encoded shorter texts and collections into a larger corpus for linguistic research; this is feasible only if the editorial and encoding practices of the smaller texts are the same, or can be harmonized.

Guidelines for encoding textual data can be expected to benefit a variety of interested parties: Scholars encoding texts for the first time will be able to find guidance in choosing what information to encode, and what to omit. Without guidelines, those who encode texts must invent their own scheme, and those doing so for the first time may often overlook obvious requirements for useful encoding. A set of guidelines which would remind them of less obvious problems would thus help ensure a higher level of quality and usefulness in encoded texts. Scholars who encode in accordance with the guidelines will be able to exchange texts with others with less special effort to document the encoding scheme. Instead of describing every tag used and including a separate document to convey information (such as copy text or source and date of the encoded version itself) not contained in the text proper, text preparers would need merely to refer to the guidelines themselves and perhaps discuss briefly the peculiarities of the individual text. This would be a particular benefit in the administration of large archives of machine-readable texts. Scholars who acquire texts encoded by others will enjoy the converse benefit: the text they obtain will be easier to understand, because better documented. (Under current conditions, a great many texts circulate with no significant documentation at all, despite the best efforts of the archives to acquire and distribute documentation for their texts, and even if the texts use a common encoding scheme like the COCOA tags adopted for the Oxford Concordance Program

"COCOA" stands for "word COunt and COncordance program on Atlas", the name of an early British program, which first introduced the flexible and simple style of tagging still called, in the Oxford documentation, "COCOA tags".

Existing text tagging schemes may be divided into two classes: first, those associated directly with specific concordance software or large text-corpus projects (COCOA tags, the tagging scheme used by the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, or the tags required by WatCon, or ARRAS); and second, general-purpose schemes developed within the data-processing industry for text preparation, exchange, revision, and publication. Cutting across this division one may also distinguish schemes which tag the content or structure of the text and those which specify its appearance on the page (or screen).

It would be clearly advantageous if some common encoding scheme were usable both for analytic research and for the preparation of printed versions (editions, typeset concordances, commentaries with extended quotations, lexica, glossaries, dictionaries) of textual material. This would make it easier to publish the results of textual research, make texts prepared for publication usable for research purposes, and also ease the learning process for scholars who use the same computer resources both for writing (word processing) and for textual analysis. If one scheme, or two related schemes, could be used for both purposes, there would be less confusion about how to mark a given phenomenon in the text, and more likelihood that both encoding schemes could be learned and used.

No one existing scheme, however, is adequate to both uses. Many members of the first (research-oriented) group suffer from inadequate generality, arbitrary limits on the depth of hierarchical tagging of the logical or physical structure of the text, or from limits on the maximum number of distinct tags. All suffer from the ignorance of the data-processing industry at large: that is, none of them, even the best conceived, can be used for any purpose other than concordance-making or other analytic purposes. Within the second group (schemes oriented to office automation and machine-assisted publishing), many schemes require more technical sophistication than can realistically be expected of even experienced computer users, and no scheme provides adequate facilities for encoding all the attributes of a text that may be required for research.

Within the second group two recently promulgated schemes for machine-readable text markup merit special mention here.

One could also mention others, such as the Xerox Interscript encoding, the IBM Document Interchange Architecture and Document Content Architecture, or the Office Document Architecture and Office Document Interchange Format standards promulgated by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). They suffer from the comparison with SGML: in comparison, they appear to be too opaque in their construction and too distant from the readable text in their storage formats to achieve any significant following among humanists interested in encoding texts, and they will not be discussed here. A useful discussion of these schemes from the relevant point of view may be found in Cheryl A. Fraser, "An Encoding Standard for Literary Documents," (M.A. Thesis, Queen's University, 1986), x + 212 lvs.

SGML represents an attempt to standardize the syntax of "text formatting" or "markup" languages

Two prominent examples of "markup languages" are the IBM and Waterloo Generalized Markup Language (GML) products, based respectively on IBM's Document Composition Facility (DCF) Script, and on the genetically related Waterloo Script. Similar programs, which may or may not include the same terminology and concepts, and which thus may or may not be regarded strictly as "markup languages," but which perform much the same function, include TeX (Tau Epsilon Xi, a public-domain typesetting language distributed by the American Mathematical Society), the TOPS-10 program Runoff, the Vax VMS program Scribe, and ROFF (a ubiquitous "runoff" or text-formatting program) and its descendants, most prominent the Unix utilities nroff and troff.

SGML does not define a specific set of tags with which to mark texts up. This is left to the individual implementation, and is expected to vary from application to application,

Thus an emphasized or italicized phrase may be preceded in one GML by the tag "<ital>" and followed by the tag "</ital>", while another GML may accomplish the same thing with the tags ":hp1." and ":ehp1." ('highlighted phrase, style 1', and 'end highlighted phrase, style 1') or "<emph>" "<emph/>". The GMLs may also distinguish such phrases from the titles of works, which by convention are also italicized in print, but which are logically distinct in kind and may be represented by the tags "<ttl>" ... "</ttl>" or ":cit." ... ":ecit."

The generality of the SGML abstract syntax and the flexibility of the scheme by which tag sets may be constructed and extended recommend SGML as a potential medium for devising a common encoding scheme for texts used in humanities research and teaching. It is not wholly clear whether all levels of a text are equally well served with an SGML-based syntax: word-by-word tagging (e.g. of sentence functions, word classes, and other parsing information), at least, might be better achieved with a different scheme. SGML remains, however, a very promising development and one that should be carefully considered in developing guidelines for research-oriented text encoding.

The specific implementation of SGML by the Association of American Publishers merits, a fortiori, even greater scrutiny than SGML in the abstract. Efforts are underway to give this tag set the status of an American national standard, which would make it even more attractive. The AAP tag set does solve many of the problems facing anyone encoding texts for literary, historical, or linguistic analysis. It allows, for example, for a very fine-grained delineation of the logical structure of a document. It also provides detailed rules for representing characters not present in the coded character sets (ASCII and EBCDIC) of the data-processing industry, a clear and comprehensible syntax, and thoroughly worked-out methods of representing tabular, columnar, or other difficult layouts and even mathematical and chemical formulas in a linear form. The format is thus extremely promising.

But although well conceived and well executed, the AAP tag set does not in its present form supply the broad range of tagging types needed to handle the information humanists need to encode with their texts. In particular, the publishers sought for obvious reasons to retain the greatest possible freedom for textual revision and to reserve as much freedom as possible to the book designer (not the author) in specifying the physical layout of the text. Thus the AAP tag set, like most formatting languages, provides for automatic numeration of chapters, pages, lists of numbered points, etc. Unlike most other formatting languages, it also severely restricts the degree to which the physical structure (type face, title formats, page breaks, etc.) in a text can be specified in tags. Such decisions are effectively reserved for the book designer, who specifies in a "style sheet" how the various logical components of a manuscript are to be realized in layout and type styles. These decisions make perfect sense for the preparation of manuscripts for book or electronic publication, which is the AAP's primary area of interest. In texts prepared for research, however, the numeration of pages, chapters, and numbered lists of points is given explicitly in the source, and ought to be indicated explicitly in the encoding. Errors in transcription will be easier to find, and location information will be more useful, if it is. Similarly, description of the physical layout of the text, because it is less interpretive and thus less controversial, may be preferable, or at least easier, for research purposes than the interpretation of the layout in terms of a logical hierarchy of structural elements in the text. And for many types of study (analytic bibliography for the modern period, codicology, papyrology, numismatics and epigraphy for the older periods, and textual criticism for all periods) the description of the physical realization of the text is at least as important as the logical structuring of the text.

The promise of the AAP tag set for textual analysts, therefore, lies in its potential as the basis around which a solution might be constructed, rather than in its providing a solution ready-made. At the very least, the AAP tag set will require extension for enumerated textual components and for the physical description of the copy text, in order to suffice for some scholarly purposes. In order to provide an encoding scheme broad and general enough to provide tagging across the full range of interests and concerns for humanists, even broader extensions are necessary. Such extensions would provide tags for items such as the following: syntactic, stylistic, metrical, morphological, and semantic features at the level of syllable, word or phrase; structural parts of a text such as chapter or act and scene; discontinuous and recurrent features such as speaker, stage direction, direct or indirect quotation; and spans of text that do not begin with a whole word, such as lacunae or words on the recto and verso of a page or the lineation of a printed text. The marking of specific points in a text, as well as of passages, which are marked for beginning and end, and the marking of arbitrary spans of text, must also be made easy. Since research by its nature is often concerned with features of texts not studied before by others (and thus not foreseen in any scheme for text encoding), the text-encoding guidelines should also specify means to include user-definable extensions that will be understandable and usable by others. Implementing tags such as these requires consideration of a variety of issues related to the humanistic analysis of texts that have not been addressed in SGML or the AAP scheme simply because their concerns are restricted.

We conclude, therefore, that SGML and the AAP's implementation of SGML, while likely to provide a usable base for a common set of text-encoding guidelines, do not as presently constituted solve the problems of text encoding for historical, literary, or linguistic research. Because SGML appears to be increasingly accepted as a framework for representing texts in machine-readable form, and the AAP tag set seems likely to increase rapidly in importance and utility, it would be sensible to try to make any set of text-encoding guidelines compatible with the AAP tag set, or at least with the SGML syntax. We propose to make a concerted effort to make our text-encoding guidelines, where possible, compatible with appropriate existing schemes, of which SGML and AAP appear at present to be the most promising. The AAP has agreed to attend the planning conference and participate in the drafting, validation, and approval of the proposed text-encoding guidelines.

In this phase we propose to convene an international planning conference of European and North American text-archive directors and other interested parties, to discuss text encoding issues and suggest the general structure and approach of common guidelines for text encoding practices.

Also during this phase, the ACH will formally invite a number of organizations to cooperate in establishing text-encoding guidelines (specifically to participate in phases 2 through 5 by helping draft, revise, approve and support the guidelines) and the cooperating groups will together appoint a draft committee or working party to be responsible for the second and third phases of the work.

Details of the cooperative agreement remain to be worked out between ACH and the other interested groups, but are expected to include common representation on the working party and arrangements for final validation and approval of the guidelines which may supersede those sketched out later in this document.

The planning conference is described in more detail in the next section. Its task is to clarify fundamental issues and provide guidance for the later phases of the process. Actually drafting the guidelines is not feasible in so short a time, as the actual text of any set of guidelines will have to include substantial amounts of technical information and documentation on existing practices, so that writing a draft will require substantial time from a number of individuals, and correspondence with a large number of individuals in a position to provide relevant technical information. The planning conference, accordingly, will not attempt to specify all the details of the guidelines, but only to discuss advantages and problems of existing practices, clarify the basic issues, settle the fundamental policy questions of scope, structure, and general approach of the guidelines, leaving details and technical points to be worked out by a smaller technical committee or 'working party' organized for that task.

In this phase a working party appointed by the cooperating groups will first publish the architecture or general plan developed at the planning conference, accept comments from interested parties, and revise the formal specification of the architecture.

Within the architecture or general shape of the text encoding guidelines specified by the planning conference (as revised), the smaller committee will work out the details of the guidelines and formulate a full draft of the guidelines on paper. While the workings of this committee are best left for themselves to arrange, it seems clear that much of the work will have to be done by mail or by electronic network correspondence. At least one and probably two face-to-face working meetings will be necessary to allow for intensive discussion of technical issues.

This phase comprises one or more cycles of publication, comment, and revision in which the draft guidelines are circulated to interested parties and the public for comments and suggestions. The working party will be responsible for considering the suggestions and comments and incorporating them, or not, into the draft guidelines as is appropriate.

The revised draft prepared by the working committee will be submitted, after public comment and revision, to the appropriate learned societies and professional bodies for their formal approval. The exact form this approval will take is a matter for discussion within the societies, but it is our view that an appropriate mechanism to ensure the widest discussion and hence widest acceptance of the draft proposed standard would be to convene a second conference of representatives from all of these groups (and perhaps other interested bodies such as the American National Standards Institute) at a later stage, at which properly constituted representatives could vote on any controversial elements in the proposed guidelines. Funding for this second conference is not however sought at this point.

After the draft is completed and approved, the Association for Computers in the Humanities will publish it and undertake to provide continuing maintenance and support for it, including making arrangements for periodic review and revision as needed. While we do not anticipate constant change, which would undermine the advantages of the guidelines, further experience with the guidelines could well lead to suggestions for modifications and improvements. The advancing sophistication both of our computer systems and of the textual research performed with their aid, moreover, will encourage regular extensions of the guidelines to cover new areas of research. As the initiator of this effort the Association for Computers in the Humanities undertakes to maintain a technical committee to receive correspondence on the guidelines, assist interested parties with implementation and interpretation, and cooperate with other groups on future revisions and extensions.

The conference must set the general framework for further work on the text encoding guidelines. The conference, therefore, must specify the essential structure of the final guidelines clearly and correctly enough to provide guidance to the working group, without being prematurely specific in technical details. Questions the conference must address include: Fundamental questions: Under what conditions is a standard encoding scheme in fact feasible and desirable? Is there a set of basic principles in terms of which all or most existing encoding schemes can be described? If so, what are those principles? Which of those principles should be incorporated into the new guidelines? With what existing encoding schemes (e.g., SGML and the AAP scheme) should the new guidelines (ideally) be compatible? Scope of the guidelines: What types of textual material should encoding guidelines cover? Continuous texts only, or also structured texts like dictionaries, glossaries, lexica, word lists, word frequency lists, parsing rules, corpora of random or non-random samples, commentaries on other texts, etc.? What types of analysis should an encoding scheme attempt to support? Stylistics, textual criticism, analytic bibliography, computational linguistics, thematic studies, metrics, authorship identification studies, commentary? What other activities (data exchange, archival storage, ...) should be addressed by the guidelines? Structure of the Guidelines: What form should the guidelines take? Specifically, what should the table of contents of the guidelines look like? How specific should the guidelines be? Should they specify or suggest specific tags with which to encode texts, or only a structural plan for the tags, with the specific lists of tags to be determined by those who encode the text? (That is, should the guidelines specify only how texts should be encoded, or what features of the text ought ideally to be encoded?) If specific tags are specified, should the list be exhaustive or provide only a core of listed tags, with provisions for user-defined special-purpose extensions? Possible Content of the Guidelines: How extensive should the list (if any) of required or recommended tags be, and what types of information should they convey? What information (if any) about physical layout and appearance of the text (manuscript, edition) should be specified? What information (if any) about linguistic units (parsing, meaning, dictionary forms of words, etc.) should be tagged? What interpretive information (stylistic, metrical, rhetorical, narratological, etc.) should be tagged? Should the guidelines attempt to specify explicitly what binary codes are to be used for tags, require the user to do so, or specify a normal practice and allow deviations in individual cases? Should the guidelines include recommendations on how tags should be encoded, and how they should be re-defined? If specific binary codes are to be suggested or required, how should they be chosen? Organizational Issues: Who should be responsible for producing a draft of the guidelines? Once the working group has produced a draft, how should it be criticized, revised, and accepted? (Note: one possible outline of the further work is described elsewhere in this proposal, but details of the further proceeding are subject to change.) Who should be responsible for accepting the draft and encouraging its use? Who should be responsible for publishing, maintaining, and (as need arises) revising the guidelines?

Both in order to illuminate the questions just mentioned and in order to clarify current practice, representatives to the planning conference will be asked to describe any encoding schemes they have devised or use, indicating both how tags are indicated in the text and specifically what features of the text are included in the tags. Descriptions will be requested in writing and distributed to all participants beforehand. One immediate product of the conference, therefore, will be a broad account of the various methods in use now for encoding texts for humanistic research. This account may be integrated with the eventual guidelines or published separately.

The first working conference should not attempt to decide all the questions of text encoding themselves; the details of the draft guidelines should be left to the working party. Among the issues we specifically recommend the conference leave undecided: What specific tags should be included, and at what levels (required, recommended, optional) of the scheme. What binary codes should be used in the guidelines. If the working party is instructed to strive for compatibility with certain existing standards, what deviations from those standards might be necessary or allowable. (This determination is best left to the working party itself.)

The organizations entering into this agreement ('sponsoring organizations') undertake to sponsor, as described herein, an initiative to draft, publish, and support guidelines for the encoding of texts in machine-readable form for research or teaching and a common interchange format for the exchange of literary and linguistic data.

The basic principles governing the initiative and the resulting format shall be those enunciated in the closing statement of the conference sponsored by ACH at Vassar College in Poughkeepsie, New York, on November 12 and 13, 1987 (appended).

The initiative shall be guided by a steering committee comprising two voting representatives of each sponsoring organization. The steering committee shall appoint one or more editors, as they shall choose, to coordinate the actual drafting of the guidelines and interchange format. The steering committee shall also constitute working committees from the literary and linguistic computing community for the actual drafting and development work. The function of the steering committee will be to appoint the editor(s), to monitor the work of editor(s) and drafting committees, to consider and settle policy questions with the editors, to present the text to the advisory board of participating organizations for approval, and to authorize the publication of the final text.

The sponsoring organizations undertake: to appoint two members to the steering committee of the initiative. to encourage their members to contribute their technical expertise to the success of the initiative by serving on the drafting committees. to publicize the initiative in their newsletters and other organs of communication. to circulate drafts and partial drafts to their members for comment. to encourage publication of working papers of the initiative in their journals (if appropriate). to encourage the discussion of text encoding problems at meetings organized or sponsored by the organization (e.g. in special sessions). to contribute to the initiative such administrative services as are already routinely performed by the association (e.g. provision of mailing lists or mailing labels). to endorse the use of the guidelines and interchange format for the encoding of texts and the exchange of already encoded texts. to publish, in concert with the other sponsoring organizations, the final form of the guidelines and interchange format, and encourage their dissemination among the interested community of teachers and scholars. to establish and maintain some mechanism (e.g. a standing committee or bureau) for the continuing development of the guidelines and interchange format in cooperation with the other sponsoring organizations after completion of the first version. These mechanisms shall be responsible for accepting comments and suggestions from the membership of the sponsoring organizations, monitoring the success of the recommendations, and considering revisions and extensions in the light of experience.

Signed:

For the Association for Computers and the Humanities:

For the Association for Computational Linguistics:

For the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing:

The organizations entering into this agreement ('participating organizations') will participate (as described below) in an initiative to draft, publish, and support guidelines for the encoding of texts in machine-readable form for research and teaching and a common interchange format for the exchange of literary and linguistic data.

The basic principles governing the initiative and the resulting format shall be those enunciated in the closing statement of the conference sponsored by ACH at Vassar College in Poughkeepsie, New York, on November 12 and 13, 1987 (appended).

The initiative shall be guided by a steering committee comprised of two voting representatives from each of three primary sponsoring organizations: the Association for Computers and the Humanities, the Association for Computational Linguistics, and the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing. The steering committee shall appoint one or more editors to coordinate the actual drafting of the guidelines and interchange format. The steering committee shall also constitute working committees from the literary and linguistic computing community for the actual drafting and development work.

Each participating organization will name one representative to an advisory board. The advisory board will provide liaison between the steering committee and editor(s) and the membership of the participating organizations, to ensure: that the needs of the membership for encoding literary and linguistic data are adequately addressed in the guidelines and interchange format; that similar or related efforts within specific areas of the literary and linguistic computing community are made aware of and, where appropriate, coordinated with the work within this initiative; and that the membership of participating organizations is made and kept aware of the work of this initiative and provided the opportunity to participate in it.

The participating organizations undertake: to appoint one member to the initiative's advisory board. to encourage their members to contribute their technical expertise to the success of the initiative by serving on the drafting committees. to publicize the initiative in their newsletters and other organs of communication. to circulate drafts and partial drafts to their members for comment.

The names of the participating organizations will be listed in the front matter of the final document describing the guidelines and interchange format, under the heading "Advisory Board of Participating Organizations."

Signed:

Association for Computational Linguistics, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Association for Computing Machinery, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, American Society for the Advancement of Science.

Teaching Officer for Computing in the Arts and Section Manager, Computing in the Arts, Oxford University Computing Service

1965-69 Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford (Mary Hammill Exhibitioner)March 1967 Honour Moderations in Greek and Latin Literature: Class IIJune 1969 Final Honour Schools in Oriental Studies (Egyptian with Akkadian): Class I

1969-75 Computer programmer at the Atlas Computer Laboratory, Chilton. (The Atlas Laboratory at that time provided computer facilities for university applications, where the application was not suitable for the university's own computer.)1975- Teaching Officer for Computing in the Arts at Oxford University Computing Service. Over the past 12 years the post has developed into Manager of the Computing in the Arts section with a staff of 10 (of whom 5 are on permanent appointments and 5 fixed-term).1979- Fellow (by Special Election) at St Cross College, Oxford. Director of Computing in the College.1984 Visiting Distinguished Professor at the University of Alberta, Edmonton (January-February).

1973-Founder member of the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing and committee member for most of the period since its foundation.1978 Founder member of the Association for Computers and the Humanities1979-83 Member of the Executive Council of the Association for Computers and the Humanities1979-83 Editor of the Bulletin of the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing.1984- Chairman of the ALLC.1985- Member of the Editorial Committee for Literary and Linguistic Computing and of the program committee for the annual ALLC conferences.

Numerous conference papers, invited lectures, and workshops in Great Britain and abroad. I have also been a consultant/academic visitor to the departement d'Informatique at the Université de Montréal in 1979 and 1986.

Numerous invited papers and other conference contributions in the fields of humanities computing and computer science education.

President, Association for Computers and the Humanities, 1985-present. Member, Liberal Arts Computer Science Consortium, 1984-present. International Representative for the United States to the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing, 1987-present. International Representative for the Northeastern United States to the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing, 1984-1987. Editorial Advisory Board, ed. I. Lancashire and W. McCarty, Oxford University Press. Organizer and Co-director, Meeting on Text Encoding Practices, funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities, Vassar College, November 1987. Organizer and Director, Workshop on Computers and the Humanities Courses, sponsored by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the Association for Computers and the Humanities, Vassar College, July, 1986. Member, Executive Council, Association for Computers and the Humanities, 1984-1985; nominating committee, 1984, 1985 (chairman). Chair, Steering Committee for the Scholarly Research Text Initiative, 1987-present. Chair, Association for Computers and the Humanities Committee on Text Encoding Practices, 1987-present. Member, Steering Committee, National Educational Computer Conference, 1986-present. Member, Steering Committee, Eastern Small College Computing Conference, 1985-87.

Member of: Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computers and the Humanities, Association for Computing Machinery, Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing, Linguistic Society of America, Modern Language Association.

1985 Ph.D., Comparative Literature, Stanford University. Dissertation: An Analysis of Recent Work on Poetics.1982-83 Georg-August Universität zu Göttingen1978-79 Université de Paris IV (Sorbonne)1977 A.M., German Studies, Stanford University1977 A.B., German Studies and Comparative Literature, with distinction, with Honors in Humanities and Honors in German Studies, Stanford University1975-76 Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Freie Universität Berlin

In press and In ed. Phillip Pulsiano. New York: Garland, [forthcoming].In progress (With Prof. Joseph Harris) 1987 Review of Nancy M. Ide, (Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1987). 21 (1987): 261-64.1985 . 100 (1985): 16-40.1979 Stanford Honors Essays in Humanities, 22. Stanford, Ca., 1979.

1987 Association for Computers and the Humanities, National Endowment for the Humanities: Meeting on Text Encoding Practices. Poughkeepsie, New York, 12 November 1987.1987 Concordances and Beyond: Data Base Techniques for Literary and Linguistic Research Claremont Colleges, Mellon Foundation: Computer Applications to the Curriculum—Beyond the Quantitative (workshop for selected Claremont Colleges faculty). Claremont, California, 1-2 June 1987.1987 Providing Centralized Support for Humanities Computing. International Conference on Computers and the Humanities. Columbia, S.C., 10 April 1987.1987 What Computers Ought to be Doing for Us: Three Daydreams. Pomona College. Claremont, California, 10 February 1987.

1980 Section Leader, Humanities 62 (supervised two discussion sections meeting weekly for two hours in survey of medieval and Renaissance thought and literature), Stanford University1979-80 German 1 and 2 (first-year German), Stanford University

1982-83 Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst fellowship in Göttingen1977-81 Departmental Fellow, Stanford University1976 Phi Beta Kappa, Stanford University

1987- Member, Executive Council, Association for Computers and the Humanities1987 Panelist, Discussion on Instructional Software Development. IBM Seminar for Deans of Arts and Letters. Colorado Springs, Colorado, 8 April 1987.1986 Panelist, Final Summary Session. Association for Computers and the Humanities, Sloan Foundation: Workshop on Teaching Computers-in-the-Humanities Courses. Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York, August 1986.1986 Organizer and Chair, Round Table Discussion of Foreign Language Processing. IBM Advanced Education Projects Conference. San Diego, California, February 1986.1986- Member, Association for Computers and the Humanities, Working Committee on Text Encoding Practices.1985-86 Member, Executive Board, Northeast Association for Computers in the Humanities1983 Editorial consultant (Nibelungenlied stanza, Middle High German metrics), revised edition of 1982-86 Outside reader (German medieval literature), .1981-82 Editorial assistant, 97.3 (1982).1980- Extensive work developing computer-based tools for humanities teaching and research; teaching computer use to humanists, and consulting with humanists on computer applications in research and teaching.

1987- Research Programmer, University of Illinois at Chicago Computer Center1985-86 Humanities Computing Specialist, Princeton University Computing Center (Research Services Group)

Research and Research Management in Computer and Information Science. Focusing primarily at the intersection of computational linguistics, artificial intelligence, and information science. Particular interests in the development of natural language and knowledge resource systems, that is, the design and implementation of computer-based facilities that support accessing, organizing, and using knowledge and information. Extensive experience with natural language understanding systems—both text and speech, text processing systems, and personal file management systems with applications in medicine and law. Current activities concentrating on the lexicon, machine-readable dictionaries and other online reference works, and the management of massive document files.

Projects administered have been funded in excess of $10,000,000.

1984- District Manager, Artificial Intelligence and Information Science Research, Bell Communications Research, Morristown, New Jersey.1983-84 Program Manager, Natural-Language and Knowledge-Resource Systems. SRI International, Menlo Park, California.1971-83 Project Leader and Senior Research Linguist, SRI International, Menlo Park, California.1962-71 Head, Language and Text Processing, The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts.1961-62 Technical Staff, The MITRE Corporation.1961-71 Visiting Scholar, Research Affiliate, and Guest, Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.1960-61 Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychiatry, Baylor University College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.1959-61 Research Associate, Department of Psychiatry, Baylor University College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. Principal Investigator, Public Health Service Grant on Language Variability in Psychiatric Patients.1957-61 Research Psychologist (part time), Veterans Administration Hospital, Houston, Texas.1955 Visiting Assistant Professor of Linguistics in the Linguistic Institute and Research Associate in the Office of the University Examiner (Summer), University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.1953-1961 Assistant Professor of Psychology, Rice University, Houston, Texas.

1945-1947 Deep Springs College, Deep Springs, California1947-1952 University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; Psychology Ph.D. 1955; Thesis: The relation between creativity and selected test behaviors for mathematicians and chemists1952-1953 Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut; Linguistics1953 Indiana University (Summer), Bloomington, Indiana; Linguistics

Association for Computational Linguistics, Certificate of Recognition, 1987. American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Certificate of Recognition, 1984. Association for Computing Machinery National Lecturer, 1973-1974. Social Science Research Council Fellow, 1952-1953. Phi Beta Kappa, elected 1952. Sigma Xi, elected 1952. University Fellow and various scholarships, University of Chicago, 1947-1952. Deep Springs Scholarships, Deep Springs College, 1945-1947.

American Association for Artificial Intelligence, 1979-present. American Psychological Association, 1953-1972. American Society for Information Science, 1970-present. Association for Computers and the Humanities, 1979-present. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1965-present. Association for Computing Machinery, 1963-present. Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing, 1985-present. Dictionary Society of North America, 1985-present. Euralex, 1985-present. Linguistic Society of America, 1960-present. Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behavior, 1979-present.

Full Professor of Mathematical Linguistics at the University of Pisa and Director of the Institute for Computational Linguistics of the Italian National Research Council (CNR).

1970-1976 Associate Professor of Mathematical Linguistics (professore incaricato) at the Faculty of Letters and Philosophy of the University of Pisa, Italy.1975-1977 Full Professor of General Linguistics (professore straordinario) at the University of Genoa, Italy.1978- Full Professor of Mathematical Linguistics (professore ordinario) at the Faculty of Letters and Philosophy at the University of Pisa, Italy.1975-1978 Professor in Computational and Mathematical Linguistics at the School for Graduate Studies in Linguistic Sciences (Scuola di Perfezionamento in Scienze Linguistiche) at the Faculty of Letters and Philosophy of the University of Pisa, Italy.1982- Director of the PhD Curriculum in Computational and Applied Linguistics for the Doctorate of Research (PhD in Linguistics).1970 Director of the International Summer School on Mathematical and Computational Linguistics Linguistic and Literary Electronic Data Processing.1972-1977 Director of the II, III, and IV International Summer Schools on Mathematical and Computational Linguistics.1982- Lecturer of the course in Linguistics for the School of Graduate Studies in Phoniatrics and Logopedics of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Pisa.

1982- Member of the Ad hoc Group for lexicography of the European Science Foundation.1982- Italian correspondent for INFOTERM (Vienna).1983- Italian representative for ACPM (Committee of EUROTRA).1983- Member of Executive Committee of EUROLEX.1985- Italian delegate in the Commission of the European Community CGC 12 (Management and Coordination Advisory Committee - Linguistic Problems).1985- Chairman of the ad hoc Task Force (for Machine Translation) of the CGC 12.1985- Co-opted member responsible for the use of computers in the humanities in Europe for the Standing Committee for the Humanities of the European Science Foundation.

1968 Chairman of the Organizing Commitee of the Colloque International sur le Dictionnaire latin de machine.1970 Chairman of the Organizing Committee of the Colloque International L'elaboration electronique en lexicologie et en lexicographie (Pisa).1972 Member of the Program Committee for the 5th International Conference on Computational Linguistics.1973 General Coordinator of the 5th International Conference on Computational linguistics (Pisa).1974 Responsible for the Computational Linguistics section of the 4th International Congress of Applied Linguistics (Stuttgart, 1975).1974 Member of the Program Committee for the 6th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Montreal, 1975).1974 Member of the Honorary Committee of the 2nd International Conference on Computers and the Humanities (Los Angeles, 1975).1975 Member of the Scientific Program Committee and Co-president of the Computational Linguistics and Machine Translation section of the 4th AILA World Congress (Stuttgart).1976 Member of the Scientific Program Committee for the section on Lexicography and Quantitative linguistics of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Ottawa).1978 Co-president of the Scientific Committee for the Computational Linguistics section of the 5th AILA World Congress (Montreal).1978 President of the Scientific Program Committee of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Bergen).1980 Member of the Scientific Program Committee of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Tokyo).1981 Responsible for the workshop On the Possibilities and Limits of the Computer in producing and publishing Dictionaries, organised for the European Science Foundation (Pisa).1981 Member of the Organizing Committee of the Round Table on the Application of the Computer to Spanish (Pisa).1982 Member of the Scientific Program Committee of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Prague).1982 Chairman of the Organizing Committee and member of the Program Committee of the VII ALLC Symposium Computers in Literary and Linguistic Research (Pisa).1983 Member of the Scientific Programme Committee of the ICCL (San Francisco).From 1983 Co-chairman of the ALLC Symposia and Proceedings.1984 Member for computational linguistics of the Scientific Committee of Eurolex II (Zurich 86).

1960 Degree cum laude in Classics at the University of Padua with a thesis in glottology (Studies in linguistic statistics performed using an IBM system).1961 NATO study grant at the International Summer Institute on Mechanical Translation.1962 NATO study grant at the International Summer Institute on Automatic Documentation.1960-1965 Research Director and Assistant to the Director at the Centro per l'Automazione dell'Analisi Linguistica (CAAL) di Gallarate.From 1966 Consultant to the Accademia della Crusca, Opera del Vocabolario.1967-1978 Director of the Divisione Linguistica of CNUCE (Institute of the Italian Research Council).From 1971 Director of the project Vocabolario Italiano di macchina (Italian Machine Dictionary).1974 Member of the research group for Moderne Tecnologie della documentazione bibliografica ed emerografica corrente per le Università. e gli Enti di ricerca in Italia of the Committee for Technological Research of CNR.1974 Representative for Computational Linguistics of the CNR Scientific Committee for the project to Automatize the Documentation of the House of Commons.From 1978 Director of the Istituto di Linguistica Computazionale (ILC) of the Italian National Research Council (Pisa). The Institute has a staff of thirty and the following research projects are currently in progress Procedures and tools for the automation of philological research; Software and technologies for linguistic data processing; Processing and management of textual archives and linguistic multifunctional databases; Italian Machine Dictionary; Automatic syntactic analysis of Italian; Studies and textual analyses of present day Italian; Morphosyntactic analyses and lemmatisation of Spanish Knowledge representation language and semantic parser. The Institute also collaborates in more than 50 text-processing projects underway in Italy and abroad which use the encoding standards and the generalised procedures of the ILC, and has the statutory obligation of contacts, collaborations and exchanges between Italy and other countries in the field of literary and linguistic data processing using the computer.

Member of the Advisory Council of (New York).

Member of the Editorial Advisory Board of (Paris).

Member of the Editorial Advisory Board of (Louvain).

Member of the Editorial Board of the (Cambridge, U.K.).

Member of Comité de redaction of the (Besancon).

Editor of the .

Member of the Editorial Advisory Board of Multilingua (The Hague).

Director of the journal .

Invited speaker at Institutes and Research Centres in: Amsterdam, Aarhus, Barcellona, Budapest, Brussells, Chicago, Copenhagen, Liege, Leuven, London, Lubjana, Luxembourg, Madrid, Minneapolis, Moscow, Nancy, New York, Oviedo, Paris, Prague, Provo, Stanford, Stockholm, Varna, Vienna, etc.