From: CBS%UK.AC.EARN-RELAY::EARN.UICVM::TEISTEER,CBS%UK.AC.EARN-RELAY::EARN.UICVM::U35395 25-FEB-1992 00:28:22.05 To: LOU CC: Subj: TEI SC M19 Via: UK.AC.EARN-RELAY; Tue, 25 Feb 92 0:28 GMT Received: from UKACRL by UK.AC.RL.IB (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 3444; Mon, 24 Feb 92 22:44:31 GMT Received: from UICVM by UKACRL.BITNET (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 5168; Mon, 24 Feb 92 22:44:27 GM Received: by UICVM (Mailer R2.07) id 3317; Mon, 24 Feb 92 16:42:30 CST Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 16:40:06 CST Reply-To: "TEISteer: Text Encoding Initiative Steering Committee List" < TEISTEER@EARN.UICVM>, "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" Sender: "TEISteer: Text Encoding Initiative Steering Committee List" < TEISTEER@EARN.UICVM> From: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" Subject: TEI SC M19 To: Lou Burnard Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Oxford, 28-29 September 1991 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen Document Number: TEI SC M19 October 22, 1991 Version 2, October 22, 1991 Present: Robert Amsler (RA) Lou Burnard (LB) Susan Hockey (SH), chair Nancy Ide (NI) C. M. Sperberg-McQueen (MSM) Don Walker (DW) Antonio Zampolli (AZ) Absent: none. 1 1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE All being present, there were no apologies for absence. 2 2 MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (TEI SC M18) The minutes were accepted as circulated in July 1991. 3 3 MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES NOT DEALT WITH AS SEPARATE ITEMS Feedback from Tempe Meetings LB had printed out his notes from Tempe and distributed them. 4 4 WORK GROUPS The status document prepared by Wendy Plotkin (appended) had not arrived; MSM and LB provided an oral overview of the work groups' prog- ress. Points arising included: * TR 6 (corpora) had a very productive discussion in Stockholm and has lots of recommendations to make; Biber seems to be going ahead. * In conversation with LB, Jacqueline Hamesse had proposed that TR 9 (mss) meet the day before the Myrdal meeting; at LB's suggestion this has been rescheduled for 27-28 or 28-29 October. MSM suggested that manuscript problems may need to be continued for future work after June 1992, in the event that TR 9 does not produce full recom- mendations. DW said the topic was critical for humanist users and cannot be abandoned. The committee discussed replacing JH as head of the group, deciding that SH should broach the subject of stepping down with JH at some opportune point following the October and November meetings. LB suggested that it was too late now, given the lack of SGML expertise among the members of this group, to expect any tags for manuscripts in the 1992 Guidelines. RA asked whether the Wittgen- stein project can provide a tag set for P2; LB thought not and urged that the committee realize that there is no chance of tags for mss by 1992. MSM agreed, but suggested that the group not be canceled. This is the point, he argued, at which the steering committee must draw appropriate conclusions from its decision in June to continue TEI development work. In this case, the appropriate decision would be to continue this group and hope for fruit in 1993. RA asked how mss would be mentioned in P3. AZ asked that first the committee explicitly confirm that such a decision was in fact taken in June. SH asked that the discussion focus on what to do about this group in the short run, whether to encourage this meeting in October or not, and whether to add someone to the group? AZ suggested that Andrea Bozzi might serve; LB suggested Ingo Kropac. SH summarized the situation with this WG thus: 1. there has been no action so far 2. JH is expert in the field and is involved in other standards efforts, and thus is apt as head 3. the group needs to have for Norway some information on what impinges on other groups The options appear to be 1. abandon the group 2. let them have this meeting (but not expect too much from it) 3. find a superhero to do the work in time The committee agreed to allow the proposed October meeting to go forward and hope that something can be achieved for future inclu- sion, whether anything appears in time for P2 or not. The committee also agreed to invite Ingo Kropac to serve as a (funded) member of the work group. The action to MSM to ask Elizabeth Brown for nomi- nations for others to work on the problem was continued. MSM to contact Elizabeth Brown of AHA for nominations Due: asap * AI2 (spoken texts). DW reported that Dafydd Gibbons of Bielefeld is very interested in being informed about this group's work. MSM was asked to have papers sent to him, with SJ's consent. [SJ is willing for the revised paper to be sent, which should be ready in mid- October. -MSM] MSM to have AI2 documents sent to Gibbons Due: asap LB reported on his correspondence with Brian MacWhinney, who is unhappy to learn that Jane Edwards is serving on the work group and fears misrepresentation of CHAT and CHILDES. MacWhinney recommends Kim Plunkett at Oxford for a better understanding of CHAT and CHILDES. AZ observed that MacWhinney's concern needs to be taken very seriously, and poses a very interesting problem. MacWhinney has developed CHAT as a proposed standard; it is not simply the internal local storage format of an existing archive of data. SJ to circulate reports to Dafydd Gibbons and Brian MacWhinney for review, with particular stress on the goal of creating an interchange standard Due: asap (upon completion of next revision) MSM to find out when we have been in contact with MacWhinney, so we can remind him that we have been trying to contact him from the beginning and to involve him in our work Due: asap LB to continue correspondence with MacWhinney Due: immediately * AI3 (literary studies) has two outstanding items: Rosanne Potter's survey of MLA members, and their critique of P1 (AI3 W5), for which we have provided a summary and promised a reply. SH has correspond- ed with RP, who is happy to continue working on the survey (though busy). The summary of AI3 W5 led to inconclusive discussions with Prof. Fortier; SH will say that it will be included in the discus- sion of comments in Norway. * AI5 (MR dictionaries). RA is confident that there will be a new description of basic tags; he suggested that perhaps the group has waited too long to realize it may not be able to provide a single definition of dictionary structure suitable for all the interested communities and may need multiple DTDs. * AI6 (computational lexica). This group has been conducting a sur- vey, in which they have collected lots of interesting unexpected details on people's systems. 5 5 AFFILIATED PROJECTS The editors reported that after the summer workshops they view the affiliated projects as an overall success; there may be a need to re- think the arrangements with the affiliated projects for the future, but there is a definite need for continuing some sort of affiliated projects. DW reported that the ACL DCI has released a first version of its CD-ROM for a $25 handling charge. This is a provisional version, not TEI-conformant, including a limited set of texts including Wall St. Journal, Dept. of Energy Abstracts, two versions of the Collins English Dictionary, and material from the Penn Tree Bank project. Mark Liberman has at last got funding to support the work; Rafi Khan will assume responsibility for incorporating TEI tagging in subsequent reissues. 6 6 TEXT DOCUMENTATION, METALANGUAGE COMMITTEES Text Documentation Committee The resignation of Dominik Wujastyk as TD committee head was regret- fully accepted. SH will ask Marianne Gaunt to take over chair of this committee. On the agenda for the TD meeting on 7-8 November: (1) review current chapter 4 and polish it. (2) examine additions proposed by other WGs for header. (3) look at extensions/modifications for bib- liographic citations. LB suggested a new member to replace DW: David Rhead, of Nottingham, who has been involved in a project to improve Bib- TeX in connection with LaTeX version 3. MSM was asked to provide some working documents on the point of the TD meeting. SH to ask Marianne Gaunt to take over as chair of the TD committee Due: asap LB to ask David Rhead if he is willing to serve on TD committee Due: asap MSM to produce some concise working document(s) on the point of the TD meeting Due: [At this point AZ was excused from the meeting to attend the Euralex meeting.] Metalanguage Committee The ML committee should have at least one more meeting, preferably in January or February. It is still too early to contemplate ISO status for TEI DTDs. How- ever, it is definitely a good idea to register the TEI DTDs with the registry in Germany. 7 7 EDITORS' REPORT ON OTHER ACTIVITIES MSM reported that he has recently published a paper in Literary & Linguistic Computing, and spoke at the TeX User Group meeting in Dedham, an archivists' meeting in Ann Arbor, and the International Society of Anglo-Saxonists at Stony Brook. He also attended the AI7 (terminology) work group meeting in Oak Ridge. LB reported that he had not been able to attend the SALT meeting or the Milton symposium; he had helped with the Oxford and Providence work- shops, and attended an AI2 (spoken texts) meeting, the AHC meeting in Odense, the TR6 (corpus) meeting in Stockholm. He had written two papers for the volume prepared by AI4 (historical studies) for Odense and given talks to the Norwegian SGML Users Group and at the University of Stockholm. In addition, he has produced DTDs for the Chadwyck-Healey English Poetry Database project and for Oxford Electronic Publishing. LB reported that in the future he will be attending a meeting of a working group in Bibliothe"que Nationale interested in MR text, giving a technical presentation at SGML 91 in Providence, speaking at the CARG meeting at the American Academy of Religion and the Society for Biblical Literature meeting in Kansas City, and giving a mini-workshop on the TEI at CATH 91. 8 8 BUDGET SUMMARY MSM apologized for the absence of a full budget report and promised to distribute overview figures as soon as possible. He believed in short that there are no serious budget problems and no serious shortage of funds. 9 9 STATUS OF COMMENTS ON P1 SH asked how much work would be involved in reviewing comments at the Myrdal meeting in November. The editors reported that only a handful of comments contain substan- tive, detailed technical points. Many of the major points raised in the comments concern the presentation rather than the substance of the scheme. Some of the major substantive issues touched on include: 1 character sets, 2 rendition and physical layout, 3 bibliographic infor- mation, 4 names / addresses / dates / currency and similar crystals, 5 office documents, 6 complexity (including complexity of extension mecha- nisms). 10 10 PLAN FOR NORWAY MEETING The committee discussed which of these topics need to be discussed in plenary session at Myrdal. The committee felt that it was best not to organize the meeting by having each WG head stand up and speak in suc- cession; the meeting must generate an integrated discussion. RA sug- gested having a one-page report from each WG so that oral reports are not needed. SH observed that the meeting will need some kind of inte- gration or coalescence of different features discussed by different work groups. NI suggested that all attendees should have received some substantial technical report from every work group. LB suggested organizing the meeting by topic according to the projected outline of version 2 of the guidelines. NI observed that two levels of discussion might be neces- sary: people working on an area overlapping with other people's work areas can (if knowledgeable about what other groups are doing) achieve a lot of coordination even before the meeting. On a different level, there are some universal/fundamental issues like semantics and what kind of semantics the TEI can address, which everyone needs to be clear on. Discussion of the detailed outline of P2 (ED W23) was postponed until the next day; the editors requested to provide this in written form. The committee discussed NI's proposal for a discussion of methodolog- ical questions, without achieving firm consensus. SH observed that dif- ferent groups working with the same features might have different views of how to define the features. DW said that the participants will be focusing very hard on their own work and should not be asked both present their own area of competence and to evaluate the work of others in topics on which they have no expertise. LB suggested that perhaps a brief paper on 'editorial principles' was needed, outlining what the editors will feel free to do to the prose and proposals produced by the work groups, and on what principles. This was agreed. Editors to draft paper on editorial principles Document Number: ED W25 (?) Due: not specified A proposal was made to ask WGs to prepare list of apparent overlaps with other work; DW felt this would not be useful. MSM suggested that perhaps 'client' groups and 'provider' groups could usefully be grouped together for breakout sessions. NI described three ways in which WGs' work can be important for other WGs: items need which have not been defined, overlaps and conflicts between what the WGs have defined, and common problems of method (like the semantics of inheritance). The committee agreed on the following agenda for the Myrdal meeting: 1. presentation of editorial principles 2. presentation of overview of TEI P2 3. systematic discussion of the technical topics The form of the systematic discussion was not immediately clear. Breakout sessions and plenary sessions were both suggested. Since there will be slightly over 30 people, it is not clear whether a coherent dis- cussion can be maintained with that number? LB proposed the use of pre- distributed position papers, with the WG heads presenting a 10-minute summary of the technical content of the section, followed by a 15-minute presentation or reaction by a rapporteur. DW observed that some meet- ings even have someone other than the author present the paper and asked who should act as rapporteur. Perhaps the editors should serve as first respondent and rapporteur for each topic. SH suggested that those responsible for a topic get 5 minutes to summarize substance and 5 min- utes to identify points of overlap with other groups or topics, followed by discussion. DW suggested that to maintain coherence, the meeting should not have multiple chairs. The committee agreed that it would be very desirable to find some mechanism like the closing statement of Poughkeepsie for achieving closure and consensus. RA asked the point of the meeting. MSM suggested that the common theme should be, for each section of TEI P2, the presentation of its substance, the presentation of outstanding problems from public comments or elsewhere, and decision on the problems (viz. approval, modification, or remanding to a conference group to meet in breakout session). In order to use Monday morning for a wrap-up session to handle outstanding questions, the meeting must finish going through the outline by Sunday night; Sunday afternoon and Monday morning, the small conference groups who have been sent away to solve conflicts should report back with solu- tions. Substantive issues raised by comments will be raised by editors in the appropriate points. The next letter to participants should ask them to provide a draft of their section by 8 November to Chicago. If no draft is ready, then the work group should provide a summary of what will be in the draft. The draft of summary should include 1. an explicit list of tags to be defined 2. a list of possible contacts, conflicts, and overlaps with other groups 3. a list of questions the WG needs to have answered or changes the WG wants made. The letter should note the specific goal of the Myrdal meeting (deci- sions on all open substantive questions) and the participants' responsi- bilities after the meeting: revision of the draft and other followup work. In discussion of the attendance list, LB noted that Nelleke Oostdijk once complained that she had never been paid for attendance at the AI meeting in September 1989. MSM was asked to investigate, and LB to urge NO to attend. SH will urge Gary Simons and Marianne Gaunt to attend. MSM to find out whether Nelleke Oostdijk has ever been paid for Oxford trip. Due: asap LB to continue urging Nelleke Oostdijk to attend Due: as appropriate SH to urge Gary Simons to attend Due: as appropriate SH to invite Marianne Gaunt to attend Myrdal meeting as head of TD committee; if MG cannot attend, then SH to invite John Byrum to attend. Due: asap After discussion, the committee decided that Paul Fortier should be invited to the Myrdal meeting on the basis of his past contributions to the TEI. SH to invite Paul Fortier to attend the Myrdal meeting Due: asap 11 11 WORKPLAN FOR THE NEXT THREE MONTHS The desirability of a SC meeting after the Myrdal meeting was dis- cussed; NI will be unable to stay past Wednesday morning. The meeting will be held in Bergen on Monday afternoon and Tuesday and finish by Tuesday evening, enabling all to return home on Wednesday. 12 12 ADVISORY BOARD MEETING - REPORT ON ARRANGEMENTS This topic was postponed. 13 13 FINAL PUBLICATION - APPROACH TO PUBLISHERS This topic was postponed. 14 14 FUTURE OF THE TEI - REPORT ON ACTIONS FROM LAST MEETING This topic was postponed. 15 15 REPORT ON WORKSHOPS It was agreed that further workshops need to be self-funding. There seems to be no pressing need for further TEI-organized workshops; the TEI should encourage independently organized workshops--e.g. the one being organized by the German working group. [Viz. the work group on text markup and standardization of the German Society for Linguistic Data Processing (GLDV). -MSM] 16 16 OUTLINE OF P2, CONTINUED [Sunday 29 September] The editors submitted document ED W23, a draft outline of TEI P2 ("version 2" of the Guidelines). To DW's query, they answered that the order of chapters within sections was arbitrary, not deeply considered. There may be some reason for reordering the topics for the Myrdal meet- ing. The editors asked for guidance on priorities among the various docu- ments to be produced. The committee's consensus was that the Guidelines proper (the reference manual) are the crucial point. There was less consensus about the second priority; over NI's objec- tion the committee assigned second priority to the generic tutorial and not to the case book. The editors agreed with AZ that it would be good to shift as much of the burden of preparing tutorials to the work groups. The committee instructed the editors to include some overview of SGML in the reference manual; the editors noted their firm belief that no tutorial on SGML should appear in the reference manual; if SGML is cov- ered it should be in a fairly compressed, dry fashion. Upon AZ's inquiry the editors made clear that the tutorials are intended to be aimed at specific user populations, which might or might not correspond to academic disciplines or to specific document types, and asked the committee for advice on which populations should be aimed at. LB suggested that a further example of a tutorial would be one for librarians. The committee assigned the following priorities to the various work products: 1. Guidelines proper (with some question about the inclusion of introductory pages on SGML; this could change between P2 and P3.) 2. generic tutorial 3. case book 4. specialized tutorials. For the Myrdal meeting a more fully specified outline of contents will be needed, with notation of who will speak on what topic: it should be more detailed than the current version of ED W23. Editors to prepare an agenda for section by section overview of P2 in Myrdal. ED W23 will be mailed out for information but will not itself be changed to agenda format. Due: asap 17 17 PUBLICATION PLANS AND HISTORY REPORT TEI P3 will be in shape for the advisory board; no conclusions were reached about formal publication. 18 18 BUDGET, CONTINUED The standard airfare figures will be changed for the Norway meeting; modified figures will be sent to the participants which will not include the per diem for the meeting days (since that will be paid centrally). MSM to prepare special travel estimate figures for Myrdal meeting Due: unspecified MSM was also instructed to arrange with Stig Johansson for central- ized payment of hotel bill. MSM to arrange with Stig Johansson for central payment of hotel Due: unspecified SH noted that OUCS has not received EEC money for the current year yet. AZ explained that no money could be sent until the final report for 1990-91 is filed. AZ, editors to prepare final report for 1990-92 EEC contract Due: immediately 19 19 NORWAY MEETING, CONTINUED AZ urged that technical material for the Myrdal meeting go out to the participants at least a month in advance: this is a very expensive meeting, and everyone must be well prepared. The meeting organization must be based on the assumption that everyone will be well prepared. DW objected that a month's advance distribution of materials is simply not feasible. SH to stress, in letter to Myrdal participants, the importance of coming to Myrdal well prepared to make decisions on technical mer- its of difficult problems Due: in next letter to participants editors to endeavor to distribute as much material as far in advance as possible Due: late October editors to distribute document list to all Myrdal participants and select a set of papers to distribute to all participants Due: 20 20 ADVISORY BOARD MEETING (RESUMED) MSM reported that local arrangements are well in hand. LB asked what the agenda of the meeting would be. DW replied that it was the review and approval of TEI P3. The SC would also address the AB on their responsibilities to carry the TEI further. LB asked what would happen if the AB members were unprepared. AZ remarked that in Chicago at the first AB meeting, the AB was told they would receive a final product and be asked to endorse it and recom- mend it to the members of their association. We now face several prob- lems: * we no longer think we will have a 'final product'. (We can discuss what this means later.) We must prepare them well in advance for this fact. * We ask for their endorsement. If they are serious people, before they will recommend the guidelines for their membership they will require substantial preparation in advance. If we do not give them adequate time for evaluation, they will not believe we are serious. We must prepare for criticism on both counts. We must begin communicat- ing the possible incompleteness of the guidelines as soon as possible; this way the AB will have reacted to this fact well before the final meeting. DW observed that according to the timetable agreed at the last meet- ing we have already agreed that there will be very little difference between version 2 and version 3. The transmission letter for version 2 should make clear what we believe the accomplishments and limitations of version 2 (and thus of version 3) to be. We will also note that it will include to some extent some indication of things still to be elaborated. It's clear that AB meeting on version 3 needs to have evaluations reflecting their judgments of inadequacies in version 2 remaining in version 3. They can obviously find new holes. MSM observed that this means all communication about version 2 is very important. P2 is not and cannot ever be referred to an "interim version". DW suggested that copies of correspondence with the AB member should also go to the president of each association. NI urged that we resume the practice of mailings newsletter articles to the AB. These newsletter articles should reflect the importance of P2. AZ agreed and stressed the importance of the cover letter for P2. The committee discussed without result what to say about areas speci- fied in the original plans about which P3 makes no recommendations. The committee discussed the final report of AI4 (historical studies work group). Their request that the TEI 'publish' a second version of their collection papers presumably involves paper publication, as they have already agreed for us to distribute the material electronically. The committee felt that commercial publication of the collection should be pursued; private publication by TEI in paper form is presum- ably too expensive for us. No specific actions were assigned. 21 21 FUTURE OF TEI (RESUMED) SH said the topics to be treated under this rubric included: 1. AZ, NI, DW funding 2. dissemination of publications, mechanism for 3. unfinished work 4. Japanese 5. structure SH summarized the consensus of the committee on this topic at the Berkeley meeting (document SC M18, item 15). AZ reported on his continued conversations with the EEC, reporting that the EEC will in any case sponsor a European expert group for stan- dards, especially for linguistic data. On 3 October the competent com- mittee will discuss the allocation of money among different lines of work: fully supported institutions, shared-cost projects, training, and "horizontal action projects". Under the latter rubric, TEI is explicit- ly mentioned, as is ALLC. If the TEI continues, it will be accepted as an umbrella organization; the EEC will support the European part of the TEI as an umbrella organization, in addition to (direct) support for expert groups. If the TEI does not continue to exist, an expert board will be formed. Hence we should announce publicly soon that the TEI will continue. The TEI would be the only organization functioning in this umbrella capacity. AZ said that the in his understanding of this plan, the TEI would make its own plans of action, independently of the EEC. The topics for TEI work will naturally coincide, in part, with the topics of interest to the EEC for standardization. The only sort of promise being required from the TEI would be merely to agree to recognize the EEC's set of work topics as relevant to our field, and to accept work products of EEC- supported projects as input to the Guidelines, as though they were the results of our own WGs. A possible second type of agreement would be for the TEI to accept the EEC expert groups as (part of the membership of) our own WGs. The possible relationship of possible American members of TEI WGs to European expert groups is not clear, in this case. NI reported that she has not yet reached Helen Aguera. When she does, she will not, in any case, be able to ask an open-ended question like "what can the NEH do to fund the TEI in the future?" At most, we can hope for a reduced level of funding. Support for ongoing salaries is not likely. The NEH, NI felt, will want a piece-by-piece approach, rather than proposals for lump-sum funding. AZ asked whether we could suggest the continuation of the present structure; NI said we could, but that it would definitely be much reduced. DW reported that the NSF is now recognizing the importance of infra- structure; we might be able to come under that umbrella. Both NSF and DARPA are very different from EEC and NEH, which have given us signifi- cant funding. DW had been charged with finding out whether money would be forthcoming, but it proved necessary first to provide NSF and DARPA with much more information about the TEI, to prepare the ground for fur- ther approach. Had we approached them about funding directly now, their limited knowledge of TEI would have precipitated premature opinions about TEI which would prevent good results. Representatives of both agencies came to the Pisa meeting of the Esprit group, where AZ's pres- entation of the centrality of the TEI and standardization issues should have significant impact on their views. DW followed this up at the Pisa meeting, where commitments were made for exchanges between LDC, CLR and NEC. There are now mechanisms in place for this sort of international cooperation. In that context, DW made a strong plea for recognizing the TEI as needing funding, making the point that funding from EEC was a likely possibility and we need corresponding US funds. DW believes they are now much more involved in the process and that we are ready to talk to them. It is too early to say, however, when results will be felt. AZ observed there has already been cooperation between parts of the Esprit project and US projects. A 20-expert meeting in Torino agreed that standardization, linguistic resources, and evaluation are the cru- cial problems. All participants accepted standardization as the first priority; AZ's draft report says that there is no point in starting a new standard effort and that the TEI should simply be supported instead. DW must work not only with Chien but also with CLR and LDC to find sup- port and consensus on the importance of the TEI. DW said the LDC is and will be available for creating linguistic resources; funds for support- ing the TEI editors, however, are uncertain. We are more likely to get funds from LDC for coding chunks of data in TEI form. That will help us get NSF money. DW will contact Charles Wayne of DARPA and Y. T. Chien of NSF to pur- sue funding further. SH reported on her contact with Japanese researchers during the sum- mer. On her visit, she had discussions with Prof. Nagao and with Mari Nagase. They do appear to have funding available and appear very inter- ested in standardization. The easiest way for Nagao to get money is to say that the Europeans and Americans have money already. AZ suggested that the Japanese should raise an amount roughly equivalent to what Europe is paying; it was noted that this will not fund an equivalent level of activity, owing to higher travel costs. NI asked what we are trying to fund for 1992-93, suggesting: SC meetings, salaries for editors and/or technical managers, work groups and their travel. No funding should be needed for working committees. Funding will be needed, however, for: workshops and dissemination, the making of new encodings, and software. MSM doubted that consensus could be found for TEI-led data capture, but agreed that we need to work to encourage data capture by others; he believed it could be packaged as part of dissemination. SH noted that standardization would be very high on the agenda of the new National Center for Electronic Texts in the Humanities. Returning to AZ's presentation of the EEC viewpoint, LB asked if the TEI creates no work groups of its own, in what sense it can be said to be an umbrella organization. He asked whether, on the EEC view, the TEI could continue to name our own work groups, ask the EEC to form an expert group on a specific topic, or refuse to validate or accept results of EEC expert groups. MSM suggested that the answers followed from what AZ had said (as yes, no, and yes). LB felt that much more detail was needed about the relationship being proposed by the EEC; AZ argued that it is still far too early to attempt to specify this rela- tionship in detail. LB objected that no agreement could be written without being much more specific; DW observed that if the TEI promises to continue "just as we are" we would be unable to change our structure at all after the EEC gives us money; it would be desirable, then, to have a more precise understanding. AZ pointed out the relative weakness of our bargaining position vis a vis the EEC and urged that we maintain a flexible point of view; it would be very easy for them to ignore the TEI and set up their own expert groups, which might produce work more easily assimilated in the usual EEC manner. The actions to AZ, NI, and DW were all continued. AZ to explore future EEC funding Due: as appropriate NI to explore future NEH funding Due: as appropriate DW to explore future NSF and DARPA funding Due: as appropriate LB argued that a much more careful consideration of our program was needed; the SC must take responsibility for this, as the editors will be prevented from it by the press of completing P2 and P3. SH, DW, and NI were assigned to formulate a program of work and design an infrastruc- ture to support it. SH, DW, NI to formulate a program of work, design an infrastruc- ture Due: not specified (asap?) Document number: SC W3 RA reported that the Dictionary Encoding Initiative is seeking funds for TEI encodings (or implementations?) of dictionary resources. 22 22 DATE OF NEXT MEETING The next meeting was scheduled for Monday (evening) and Tuesday, 18-19 November 1991, in Bergen, Norway, at the Park Pension. All mem- bers confirmed that they will be there. MSM was asked so to inform Stig Johansson. [Done the next day. -MSM] The following meeting was tentatively set for 30-31 January 1992, near but not adjacent to the Pisa corpus workshop, 24-26 January 1992. The place was tentatively agreed to be Pisa; New Jersey is the second choice. A Consortium for Lexical Resources meeting will be held 7-9 January in New Mexico. 23 23 ANY OTHER BUSINESS No other business being raised, the meeting adjourned at 16:06. Version 2, October 22, 1991