From: CBS%UK.AC.EARN-RELAY::EARN.UICVM::TEISTEER,CBS%UK.AC.EARN-RELAY::EARN.UICVM::U35395 14-APR-1992 21:26:03.27 To: LOU CC: Subj: SC M24, minutes of SC meeting, Oxford April 1992 Via: UK.AC.EARN-RELAY; Tue, 14 Apr 92 21:25 BST Received: from UKACRL by UK.AC.RL.IB (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 9878; Tue, 14 Apr 92 21:25:03 BST Received: from UICVM by UKACRL.BITNET (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 0663; Tue, 14 Apr 92 21:25:00 BST Received: by UICVM (Mailer R2.07) id 7008; Tue, 14 Apr 92 15:24:45 CDT Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:20:41 CDT Reply-To: "TEISteer: Text Encoding Initiative Steering Committee List" , "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" Sender: "TEISteer: Text Encoding Initiative Steering Committee List" From: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" Subject: SC M24, minutes of SC meeting, Oxford April 1992 To: Lou Burnard I append draft minutes of our meeting of Friday and Saturday; please send any corrections or completions to me or to the list. -CMSMcQ ------- Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Oxford, 10-11 April 1992 TEI SC M24 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen April 14, 1992 (15:16:27) Draft April 14, 1992 (15:16:27) 1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Present: * Robert Amsler (RA), * Lou Burnard (LB), * Susan Hockey (SH), * Nancy Ide (NI), * Michael Sperberg-McQueen (MSM), * Syun Tutiya (ST) (in part), * Don Walker (DW), * Antonio Zampolli (AZ) (in part). Absent: AZ was called away on urgent business and was unable to attend the first day of the meeting. ST attended a portion of the sec- ond day of the meeting. SH began the meeting by reviewing the schedule: owing to AZ's absence, the budget discussion must be on the second day, and the first day needed only to address items 1-4 of the agenda. The committee agreed to adjourn after item 4 to await AZ's return and to enable mem- bers to attend the CTI seminar Friday afternoon at OUCS. 2 MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING (SC M22) The minutes of the New Brunswick meeting (SC M22) were accepted as distributed. 3 MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES SH reviewed the arrangements made for the ALLCACH evening meeting on the status of the TEI: we will pay D. Robey's meals, and make some con- tribution to E. Mylonas and E. Brennan's travel. SH was asked to see to the acquisition of an ISBN for TEI P2. ACTION: SH to arrange for an ISBN to be assigned to TEI P2. Due: asap The action to MSM to write the NEH about the deadline for matching funds was reassigned to NI, who was also asked to request an extension of the grant expiration date: ACTION: NI to write NEH asking for extension of grant period to 30 June 1993 and extension of matching-fund deadline appropriately. Due: asap DW was asked to write the Mellon Foundation requesting a similar exten- sion. ACTION: DW to write Mellon asking for further extension of period to expend funds. Due: asap The action to NI to draft a paper SC W4 on software evaluation was carried forward. ACTION: NI to draft a paper on software evaluation methods Due: asap Document number: SC W4 4 SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF P2 SH asked the editors for an update on the status report from the pre- vious meeting. Part I. MSM has drafted about half of chapter 11; NI asked where in part I the discussion of general principles of encoding should go; this topic was set aside to come back to later if necessary. Part II. Chapter 22 (Header) is missing two small sections, but should be completed by LB and passed to MSM within a couple of weeks, as soon as Rich Giordano completes the examples. LB has made a start on his sections of chapter 23. Part III. LB had a brief discussion with Elli Mylonas on Chapter 33 (drama) and will discuss further with John Lavagnino. Chapter 34 (spo- ken texts) has been checked over to MSM. NI, Jean Veronis, MSM and LB have discussed chapter 36 (dictionaries) and NI and JV will provide a single coherent draft by end of the month. Part IV. Since the last report, TR3 has provided draft on hyperme- dia. Part V, VI. No change. Part VII is being generated automatically. Part VIII. Chapter 85 (formal grammar of TEI subset of SGML) has been completed in draft. SH reminded the editors that with a review meeting at the end of May, a lot of work remains to do before that time. At the conference, there was clearly a very broad acceptance of the guidelines as a good thing and great eagerness to see the drafts. It would be very unfortunate if this interest were to be dissipated by further delays. DW suggested that the urgency of getting material in the hands of interested people may mean we wish to countenance allowing P2 to diverge more substantial- ly from P3 than we had foreseen before, in order that drafts recognized as imperfect can circulate rather than awaiting perfection. SH asked how we could improve the method of work, and above all whether priorities could be arranged so that members of work groups willing to undertake the task could reasonably hope to produce material suitable for inclusion in P2 without radical surgery. Among chapters and aids felt to be be useful were the following (arranged more or less with the high-consensus items first) * chapter 11 on general principles of encoding * part 2, especially chapter 23, on core tags * specimen pages of tag exposition (these will be provided by whatever chapters are first released) * specification of any rules for overall chapter structure * chapter 13 on the structure of the DTDs * documentation of tag documentation tags (chapter 54) The committee discussed the difficulties faced by work groups in pre- paring the drafts, and urged the editors to attempt a more conciliatory approach to work groups whose drafts do not completely answer to the editors' expectations. SH asked what priorities should be assigned to producing the differ- ent sections. The editors proposed that the top priority should be giv- en to chapters almost ready for distribution (viz. 34 on spoken texts and 22 on the TEI header); their other top priorities are chapters 11 (about the Guidelines), 23 (tags available in all DTDs), and 13 (struc- ture of DTDs). MSM gave his next priorities as chapters 38 (terminolo- gy), 44 (analytic tools), 47 (text criticism), and 62 (modifying DTDs). The committee agreed to these priorities and suggested that chapters 11 and 23 should be released together; whichever is completed first should await the other. If 23 is ready first, it should be circulated for information within the project only. SH asked what should be expected of the May technical review meeting. The volume of remaining work makes the May date rather frightening, and the committee considered cancelling or postponing it. In discussion, a consensus emerged that it is essential to hold the meeting as scheduled. NI suggested that the work groups be informed at once of the new sched- ule, and informed that as a result of the delays they can and should continue to work on their sections, using the released sections as exam- ples. SH was assigned to do this: ACTION: SH to write a note for work groups informing them of new schedule and urging people to help get P2 ready by revising or replacing their submissions Due: asap The letter to the work groups should point out that the draft of chapter 34 should be viewed as an exemplary section. LB suggested that the special nature of chapter 34 be pointed out: 34 spends more time than other sections on description of basic questions. This was agreed. The committee reiterated its desire that chapter 23 be disseminated within the project as soon as possible, even though not released public- ly if chapter 11 is not ready. LB dissented. The committee agreed that the agenda of the May meeting should be a systematic discussion of the P2 draft, chapter by chapter. The list of invitees to the May meeting was reviewed. Additions to the first group of invitees: * Rich Giordano (remove query) * David Durand (remove query) * Peter Robinson (remove query; with specific charge for working to revise text criticism section) * David Robey (if he cannot come, Elaine Brennan) It was decided not to invite anyone from the second group of names in SC M22. It was agreed to add Jean Veronis to the funded membership of AI5. ST noted that Yokoi Toshio is also very interested in dictionary encod- ing. MSM asked to be released from the actions assigned to him; NI was assigned to write to NEH, DW to Mellon, as reflected above. 5 ALLCACH 92 CONFERENCE (MEETING FEEDBACK) SH noted that no subjects arose at the public meeting that we need to take action on. At this point, the committee adjourned for the day, to meet again Saturday 11 April 1992. 6 REMARKS FROM ST At the beginning of the second day's session, ST expressed thanks for the SC's invitation to M. Nagao to participate in this meeting. It remains necessary to write a letter to Nagao with fuller information, as specified in the notes from that discussion (SC M23). It would also be useful if an informal letter were written to Yokoi with background information, asking him to support Nagao. ST's personal commitment is to the character set problem, though this is not his specialty. Japa- nese interest in and knowledge of the TEI are rising but not yet high on any absolute scale. ST will talk to several different parts of research community in Japan; it is important to realize that in addition to the international work, much work must still be done within Japan to promote the goals of interchange and descriptive markup. Two groups in Japan are committed to SGML; it is important to be careful in speaking about SGML in Japan to remember both the publishers and printers (who are well represented in the SGML Forum) and the offi- cial JIS-related group (JIS Committee R), who are working on SGML as part of OSI seventh layer. The JIS committee comprises mostly industri- al people and computer scientists. Both organizations are private; both have some relationship with offices within MITI; it is necessary to keep both in mind. It may be necessary to clarify, for fund-raising in Japan, what relations exist among standards and bodies in the west. DW noted that the TEI has grown out of the research community, rather than either the standards or the industrial communities, and expressed the hope that any conflicts between the groups might be mediated by finding and stressing the underlying interests common to both, as has indeed been the case in the West. 6 6 BUDGET UNTIL 31 DECEMBER 1992 SH reviewed the background. The Oxford account is substantially in deficit, and SH has had several letters from Keith Moulden (KM), the administrator at OUCS, whose patience is running thin. The second part of the payment for 1990-91 had not yet been paid a few weeks ago; noth- ing had been paid for the year 1991-92; and there is some confusion about the conclusion date of the 1991-92 contract, which TEI wants to be 31 Dec 1992, and which Oxford has expected to be 30 June 1992. KM believes, or appears to believe, that 39600 ECU had been agreed as the payment for 1991-92. Income expected through 30 June 1992: 39 600 Non-staff expenditures to date (balance) 13 465 Expenditures forecast through 31 Dec 1992 9 744 The non-staff expenditures include travel, hotel bills, printing, etc. (consumables, printing, travel/subsistence, other miscellaneous, confer- ences, overseas travel, travel and subsistence). To the best of the committee's recollection, the original letter of agreement allocated 21000 ECU/year for staff costs and 9000 ECU/year for non-staff costs. The figure of 39600 ECU represents a flat 20% increase in each of these. In most recent letters, KM is asking 1255 L/mo for LB's time: 23 845 pounds from 1 Jun 91 to 31 Dec 92. AZ summarized his understanding thus: The contract between the EEC and Pisa through 91 says total cost of European editor is 66000 ECU. Of this, the EEC contributes 33000 ECU. The remainder is made up of waived overhead (42%), unreimbursed sala- ries, and in-kind contributions of CPU time, printer costs, etc. The EEC contract is also structured around immediate delivery of a portion of the money and further payments upon completion of intermedi- ate deliverables. Two months after completion of the contract, if EEC is happy with the deliverables they pay the final 20% of the monies. The EEC has the right to cancel the contract whenever we are in arrears with our deliverables; they have not done so thus far. Most recently, the financial control office has requested an affirmation that twice the amount of the EEC contract has in fact been spent. This was provided by Susan and has been mailed to the EEC and within the EEC to the financial controller. In order to solve the cash-flow problems, AZ has persuaded the finan- cial office in Pisa to allow him to pay the outstanding amounts to Oxford and the ACH out of other project funds, to be reimbursed from the EEC TEI money when it arrives. LB asked that the minutes record the gratitude of the SC to the University of Pisa for this consideration. AZ distributed copies of a message from Roberto Cencioni concerning the recent signature of the EEC contract by the competent authority in the CEC. The budget on the new contract is as follows: Item Cost EEC Share (all figures in ECU) European Associate Editor 80 000 40 000 European Heads of Working Grps 70 000 20 000 (fees and expenses) Travel by Euro SC, AB, WGs 140 000 65 000 (participation in meetings) Coordination, contract manage- 18 000 18 000 ment, and administrative costs consultancy services, 15 000 15 000 dissemination, promotion Total 323 000 158 000 AZ noted that LB's travel could be billed to the line for general travel rather than to the line for the Oxford subcontract. Alternative- ly, we could decrease the amount paid to Oslo. Upon MSM's inquiry, AZ explained that the difference between the 158,000 ECU of the contract and the higher figures mentioned informally in earlier discussions results from a reallocation of resources within the EEC, over which we have no control. AZ reviewed the schedule for delivery of the money: 30% viz. 53 400 upon signature, 3 April 1992 25% viz. 44 500 upon completion of P2 (April), ca. 3 months later 25% viz. 44 500 upon completion of P3 (June), ca. 3 months later 20% viz. 35 600 upon completion of contract and final report, ca. 5 months later SH reviewed the requests KM has made of the Steering Committee: * formally request change in completion date; SH will write an appro- priate letter * pay total arrears for period through June 1992; see below * make a specific proposal for acceptable payment for the period July - December 1992; see below SH will reply to the letter from KM. She will formally ask that the finish date of 31 December 1992 be accepted. We can also confirm that 13000 ECU, the arrears for 1990-91, is on its way. We should conflate points 2-3 to a single figure for the entire period 1 June 1991 to 31 Dec 1992. N.B. To the EEC we must justify a true cost twice the face amount; this is made more difficult for expenses like LB's travel. If we move LB's travel to the general line for European travel, then this problem will be more readily soluble. The drawback will be that LB must either request his travel funds direct from Chicago, or else from OUCS with OUCS in turn invoicing Chicago. (In the latter case, an overall ceiling for LB travel must be specified, for the sake of the Chicago accounting records.) AZ proposed agreeing to a 20% increase in LB's salary, but not to a 20% increase in non-staff expenses, since in fact travel expenses should be decreasing in the next year. This would result in figures approxi- mating the following: Staff expenses of 1200 pounds/month: 22,800 pounds for the 19 months, ca. 32000 ECU. Non-staff expenses approximately at previous rate, 20000 ECU. Total for 19 months: 52000 ECU. Payment mechanisms: AZ proposes that ca. 2/3 of the 52000 ECU (viz. 35000 ECU) be paid to OUCS immediately, out of funds currently in the ACH account in Chicago. The 35000 ECU would then be sent from Pisa to ACH, rather than from Pisa to Oxford. MSM was not certain that this was feasible from funds currently on hand, since the recent receipts of 27000 ECU (for 1990-91 European trav- el) and $10000 (ca. 8000 ECU) from Mellon would together total only 35000 ECU, but have almost certainly been depleted by expenditures since their receipt. DW suggested that ACL might be able to loan ca. $25000 to the TEI to help cover this cash-flow problem; with this proviso, MSM felt it would be possible to send the 35000 ECU immediately. SH will ask KM to send an invoice to Chicago for this amount.(1) MSM asked whether the routing of money to Oxford through ACH was a one-time operation or was intended to be a continuing practice. This was discussed but no decision was made. There will be only two payments to Oxford, and the second will be promised only for after the first of the year 1993. AZ then raised the question of what to do with the remainder of the 53400 ECU initial payment. SH will contact Stig and agree to pay 10000 ECU to Oslo at once; the remaining 8,400 would go to Chicago for Europe- an travel expenses. If SJ is not expecting any further funding for 1991-92, then the entire 18400 ECU will go to Chicago. 7 FUTURE OF THE TEI SH asked AZ if he had any comments on this topic as laid out in SC W3 ("TEI Future Developments" by SH and DW) or on the the discussion at the previous meeting as reported in SC M22. AZ replied that at present he felt we were not now completely sure on several issues; the proposal discussed in SC M22 has a number of good points, but assumes a substan- tial increase in funding for the project: Director, two coordinators, 2 or 3 FTE support staff, as opposed to 2.5 FTE all told right now. Before we commit ourselves to this structure, we must have a better idea of how much money we can obtain and what the scientific program of work involves. He also felt that less funding should be allocated to the central administration and more to the work groups or committees. DW elaborated on the proposals of SC W3. NI felt that more consideration needed to be given to how the scientific work is to be done. LB agreed; he suggested that the main emphasis of the project may shift to consul- tancy activities, which may change the way we should work. MSM pointed out that much of the best work thus far has come from work groups AI1 and AI2, headed by TL and SJ, who have had some financial support; he felt, however, that attempting to generalize this model to all work groups would be liable to impose an unacceptable administrative burden. He also reminded the committee that the model discussed last September in Oxford (SC M19, section 21) involved the TEI accepting drafts pre- pared by EEC working parties on a par with those prepared by TEI work groups. This would involve dividing our work more carefully than in the past into two areas: the preparation of drafts, and the evaluation and processing of drafts prepared by our own or other work groups. AZ was worried that if we allocate too much money to the central administration we may not be able to spend enough on humanistic areas. AZ paraphrased his understanding of the proposal thus: that with the conclusion of the second cycle, the TEI has completed the task of devel- oping Guidelines directed and promoted by the Steering Committee; no further work in the same model will be done. We must now establish a kind of umbrella organization to ensure the use of the existing guide- lines and to receive the work of other groups. SH said that on the con- trary the proposal envisages both this mode of operation and a direct continuation of our work along the same lines as heretofore. After further discussion, SH summarized: the task of choosing the topics of work and getting the work done by a work group or other method needs to remain part of our program. We must also keep the task of evaluating and integrating the proposals. But we must also consider the task of helping our members assimilate the guidelines by providing tools for the scheme's use. AZ expressed the serious concern that if we do not find central TEI funding for work groups, there may be funding only for non-humanistic topics. Also, if we consider ourselves only to be coordinating work funded by others, and providing bridges among geo- graphic regions, we will run into problems, as equal funding cannot be guaranteed from region to region. It is essential that we retain the idea of having a scientific program of our own, and continue development work of our own. The crucial role of the TEI in the future, AZ continued, appears to be to ensure scientific coordination among projects in literary and lin- guistic computing. We need to decide how to support this need and what the priorities for funding are. Funding will come from agencies in two forms: support for work groups which will work with the TEI but which will be funded by the agencies directly not through TEI, and support directly for TEI. How do we ensure this coordination? This depends on our view of the scientific needs; if the main task is the application of the guidelines to large bodies of text, the proposal of SC W3 is a good one. If the main task is to develop large new areas now inadequately treated in the guidelines, then two area coordinators are not enough. LB paraphrased and agreed: we need to find an organizational structure containing a body equally respected among all the bodies producing drafts: an Advisory Board with teeth and a brain, a sort of TEI Council or Technical Review Committee. AZ worried that the SC W3 proposal con- centrates too much on consolidating the existing status of the Guide- lines and supporting their diffusion. AZ's view was that in fact much more development is needed in order to make the Guidelines more com- plete. We need a proper mechanism to ensure that all results produced by different projects and groups are integrated into the unified scheme. The discussion identified three distinct activities, without coming to an agreed consensus on their roles in the TEI's future: 1. funding normal academic research; this has never been in itself a function of the TEI, and will not become one (unless the work of the editors be so regarded). 2. choosing topics for work group activity, naming the work groups, funding their meetings (and possibly in a minor way funding their work), directing and monitoring their work, advising them, and drafting proposals for inclusion in the encoding scheme. This has been and should remain part of the TEI's activities, but in some models of our future work, this will no longer be a monopoly of the TEI: funding bodies and independent organizations may also wish to foster the development of proposals for extensions to the guidelines. 3. evaluating proposals for the guidelines, integrating them into a unified encoding scheme, and publishing the resulting guidelines. This has thus far been done informally by the editors and ad hoc devices like the Myrdal meeting; if proposals are to be prepared by bodies other than TEI-organized working parties, the evaluation process must be formalized and separated more completely from the development process. 8 PUBLICATION AND DISSEMINATION OF P2, P3 This topic was postponed to the next meeting. 9 ANY OTHER BUSINESS There was none. 10 DATES OF NEXT SC MEETINGS The committee will meet again in Chicago on 29 May and 1 June, before and after the technical review meeting on P2. ------------------------- (1) This arrangement was based on a misconception; the 27000 ECU has been sent from Pisa but not yet received in Chicago. -MSM Draft April 14, 1992 (15:16:27)