Minutes of the Steering Committee Meeting Oxford, 25-26 September 199 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen TEI SC M27 September 29, 1992 (18:17:24); Draft September 29, 1992 (18:17:24) 1 THURSDAY 1.1 Apologies for Absence The meeting convened at 10:15 a.m., 25 September 1992. Present: * Robert Amsler (RA) * Lou Burnard (LB) * Susan Hockey (SH), chairing * Nancy Ide (NI) * C. M. Sperberg-McQueen (MSM) * Antonio Zampolli (AZ) (delayed, present after coffee break) Apologies: Don Walker (DW). 1.2 Minutes of the Last Meeting The minutes of the previous meeting (TEI SC M26) were accepted as distributed by SH, with one change: the sentence beginning "it was sug- gested that the wgs be asked ..." should be deleted. 1.3 Matters Arising Carried over from previous meetings: * SH has done nothing more with ISBN. The outstanding problem is that we must decide who is to be nominated as publisher; this must await final decisions by the SC as to how TEI P3 is to be published. * MSM has drafted a revision of the NEH budget to cover three years, but has not circulated it to the SC nor sent it to NEH. He was asked to do both. * Mellon money: DW has written the Mellon foundation asking for a further extension of our grant period, and has circulated their reply, in which they approve the second extension in termination date but indicate that no further extensions should be contemplated. * Paper on SW evaluation: NI is unlikely to be able to draft this paper in the near future and the action to her was dropped. * Draft tutorial: SH is waiting for more of TEI P2 to be available before drafting the tutorial. The action to her was continued, with the due date set to sometime after chapters CO (old 23) and PR (old 31) are done. * Bank transfers from Pisa: MSM reported that the procedures have been clarified successfully, and the most recent payment of 44,000 ECU had recently been received in Chicago (ca $62,000). * American travel budget: this work item was merged with that of pre- paring the new North American budget for NEH. Resulting actions: ACTION: MSM to circulate draft revision of NEH budget to SC for comment, and then submit it to NEH. Due: asap Document number: TEI B19 ACTION: SH to draft [outline of] generic tutorial for the TEI scheme as defined in P2. Due: after chapters on prose base (PR) and core tags (CO) are published Document number: TEI U1 Matters arising from July: * SH has talked with David Robey about chapter VE; he is working on it and plans to contact LB to talk about it. The editors were request- ed to ensure that documents are distributed in untagged as well as tagged form. They agreed that this was desirable, and reminded the committee that this is already the standard practice; if any docu- ments have been distributed only in tagged form, this was a simple oversight which should be called to the attention of the editors or of Wendy Plotkin. * MSM has not sent the outline of LO (old 63) to Syun Tutiya. The action was reiterated. * As requested, the editors had produced and distributed a tentative publication schedule for TEI P2 (document ED A23). * ACH has agreed to using money from the line for its administrative costs to pay for consultation with an accountant. * MSM reported that David Stanfield has not left the project after all and is now working 10 hours per week. * SH has not written the letter to Keith Moulden; she will speak to him in person while in Oxford. * SH and DW have revised SC W3 and it was distributed for this meeting as document SC G14. * DW discussed the future of the TEI with Nagao at CoLing. * It was not known whether WP had sent the desired information to Nagao; MSM will check. [No; mailing in progress now. -MSM] * SH has not given any final response to the proposal from Electronic Book Technology (EBT). Actions: ACTION: MSM to send Syun Tutiya a copy of the current outline of chapter LO (old 63) on local installation and support. Due: asap ACTION: MSM to ensure that WP sends documents to Nagao, as decided at last meeting. Due: asap 1.4 Completion of TEI P2 1.4.1 Schedule Issues The committee discussed the schedule for P2. Chapter CH (characters) came out on schedule; HD (header) required two or three more days of work than estimated; owing to the back to back scheduling of the edi- tors' vacations, this resulted in a delay of two or three weeks in the publication of the chapter. SH asked whether the editors hoped to make up the current delay vis a vis the schedule; MSM replied that they do hope to do so. It is not clear, however, how best to accomplish such a speedup. Work on TEI P2 is definitely subject to Parkinson's Law, since any chapter can easily absorb its full quota of editorial time, and more. Perhaps the single most time-consuming item so far is the location of suitable examples of tag usage. SH suggested that perhaps some chapters should be omitted, or perhaps chapters ought to be published in a rougher state, with fewer problems resolved, than is now being done. AZ observed that reference manuals frequently lack examples and are not always very easy to under- stand; perhaps examples, if time consuming, should not be included in P2. The committee urged the editors to enlist the work groups and commit- tees in the location of real examples, instead of working to find them themselves. The members of the working groups really ought to be in a position to help find real examples, and if this can be done without the editors' intervention it will result in a real time savings. AZ asked what the consequences of further delay in P2 might be. The SC is responsible for the continuation of the project, the essential precondition of which is funding for the editors' salaries; it seems certain we will not finish all the chapters on the schedule. The com- mittee discussed, without consensus, how to choose which chapters, if any, are not completed in 1992. AZ asked how long current funds will take us. MSM summarized his draft budget for North America 1992-93: support for the Chicago office, and travel by editor, SC, and AB will cost about $129,000. We have (pending reexamination of the figures) about $179,000 available. The $50,000 remaining should go to pay outstanding debts (late claims for travel, etc.) and fund work group travel if any. If it were used instead to support the Chicago office, he speculated in response to AZ's question, it should take us through December 1993. LB explained that for the year July 91 to June 92, his services cost 39,600 ECU. AZ estimated that 67,000 ECU remains available on the Euro- pean contract, but it is payable only upon completion of the work. Of this, 28,000 ECU would be available to use for European experts. The problem is that we cannot claim money beyond the 44000 ECU now in Pisa, except after completion of the Guidelines. The current EC contract calls for reports containing (a) the second version of the Guidelines, (b) the final version of the Guidelines as approved by the Advisory Board, and (c) a summary and assessment of the outcome of the second cycle, with draft work plan for third cycle. We have already submitted a "draft version of the second edition" of the Guidelines as the first report. AZ asked whether the $50,000 reserve could be used to hire extra help, rather than to extend the time period covered by our reserve. The editors felt that this was worth considering, though our experiences in the past have made us slightly skeptical of such attempts. MSM suggest- ed that raising the editors' (or at least his own) time commitment for the TEI to 100% or 80% should also be considered. The group discussed at some length how to reduce the amount of work needed to get TEI P3 before the Advisory Board (AB); this seemed to boil down to either cutting chapters from the table of contents or allowing the chapters included to be of lower quality than we would like. After the lunch break, SH summarized the options suggested to speed up completion of TEI P2 and P3: * redefine content (include less information in the chapters, allow rougher content) * reduce quantity of material (omit chapters) * increase editors' time for TEI work * buy other assistance for the editors These discussions must keep the budget in mind; we have enough US money to continue to June 1993, with $50,000 for other items. No European money beyond what is now available will be paid until the advisory board meets. NI pointed out that the options are not mutually exclusive; this was agreed. The committee discussed the advisory board meeting and considered, without reaching a decision, the possibility of omitting the meeting entirely, requesting approval of each chapter individually by mail instead. AZ suggested that we use 20,000 ECU of the the 44,000 ECU now in hand to pay OUCS for six months through June 1993 in advance, and promise the remainder at the conclusion of the work period, if the work is success- fully performed. This is only possible if the EEC is willing to extend the completion date of the current contract to 31 December 1993 (from 31 Dec 92). SH will raise this possibility with Keith Moulden this after- noon. LB suggested perhaps the amount should be raised to cover 3/4 of his time. The current expenditure for LB's salary is 1255 pounds/month. Raising this to 3/4 time, with a 15% increase, would raise the cost by 4330 pounds (3750 without the rise), or (at 1.2 ECU per pound) 5200 ECU (4518 ECU without the rise). This rise to 3/4 time should go from Janu- ary through June 1993. SH asked how much of the editors' TEI time has gone to the editing of TEI P2, and how much to other work. MSM estimated that week by week the amount has varied between 50% and 90% of his TEI time; LB estimated he spends 80% of his time drafting text for P2. It was decided to request 75% or 100% of MSM's time for the six months January to June 1993; the additional cost would be about $8000 for the 3/4-time, $15000 for the full-time choice. SH suggested that June 1993 be set as an absolute deadline for the completion of this cycle of the project and P3. NI felt that this could be dangerous, since our schedules have been broken before. MSM reiter- ated that the editors felt the current schedule should be stuck to through its end in December 1992, and supported the idea of making June 1993 a firm deadline; he cited the example of P1, which was completed in part by accepting 1 June 1990 as a hard deadline. NI warned that with the current low public opinion of the TEI, we must be very careful that our work be of high quality. AZ inquired into the details of this low public opinion: does it relate to the delays in delivering P2, or to the quality of the work? It appeared, in general, to be a reaction to the style of presentation and the difficulty in see- ing immediately how to use the Guidelines in computational linguistic work. This view is particularly important, since some of those who hold this low opinion of the Guidelines control a great deal of funding. AZ asked whether the lack of quality relates to the stylistic form or to the technical content. Flaws in the style and presentation can be corrected; flaws in the technical content mean we have chosen the wrong working groups. The group discussed at some length whether the editors, as generalists, are in a position to improve the work of the specialist work groups; the editors observed that even as generalists they were often in a position to notice vagueness or apparent internal contra- dictions within a section, or inconsistency among sections treating sim- ilar problems. This type of improvement, humble though it is, may nev- ertheless be worth making. At this point the committee recessed for an mid-afternoon break. After the break, SH reported on her conversation with Keith Moulden; he is not averse to the proposal we make, but must discuss it with the new OUCS director. 1.4.2 TEI ED W23 LB described the new version of TEI ED W23, distributed at the meet- ing: it incorporates the changes to chapter and section sequence sug- gested at the Chicago technical review meeting, notably in part II, chapter 6 (core tags), and in part IV (additional tag sets). Beyond those changes, the editors also propose a number of revisions and restructuring for part IV. Old 44 (analytic tools) has been divided into SA (segmentation and alignment), AI (simple analysis and interpre- tation), FS (feature structures), and GD (graphs and digraphs). Old 42 (hypermedia) goes in part into chapter CO (core), in part into SA. Old 46 (PH) on physical description has been restored, since the meeting of TR 9 (Mss) in Bergen indicates there is after all a fighting chance that such a chapter can in fact be produced in time for P2. Part I is basically unchanged; in part II, the sections of chapter CO have been rearranged. In part III, the chapter on computational lexica has been dropped, and UD (user-defined bases) added. It was agreed how- ever not to list UD in public documents. Chapter CE should be named Additional Tags for Levels of Confidence and Degrees of Certainty and Uncertainty or at least something more informative than Certainty. It was suggested that Parts III and IV should have an introductory paragraph referring to chapter ST (structure of the DTDs) and stating briefly what we understand under Base and Additional Tag Sets. NI asked whether we should set as a goal the completion of all these chapters by June 1993. She said that we could * complete all chapters at a high level of quality * complete some chapters at a high level of quality, but leave others incompleted * complete all chapters, but at a lower level of quality Obviously, we would all prefer to complete all chapters at a high level of quality; failing that, NI's personal preference would be to complete most chapters at a high level of quality. SH asked what her preference would be if instead of "most", only "a few"chapters could be completed at high quality; NI agreed that this was a conundrum. MSM pointed out that quality could be reduced in two ways: the logi- cal structure of the encoding scheme could be checked with less rigor, or the presentation of the encoding scheme could be less polished. This assumes a firm dichotomy between the encoding scheme we are defining (the technical content) and the presentation of the scheme. Of these two, MSM would prefer to reduce quality of presentation (e.g. accept less cogent argumentation, less apt examples, fewer examples, etc.). This was agreed. The committee agreed that our goal is indeed to complete this program of work by June 1993. MSM asked what exactly this would involve. AZ summarized the decisions this far made: * we suggest using reserve funds to increase the percentage of the editors' time between (e.g.) January and June * OUCS's administrator seems not unwilling to accept our proposal * UIC is tentatively expected also to agree * we will continue to release P2 chapter by chapter, but will ask the AB to react chapter by chapter; this will reduce the risks inherent in the final AB meeting * the completion of TEI P3 may belong in cycle 3 * the table of contents of TEI P2 and P3 should be that proposed in ED W23 (24 Sept 1992) -- says nothing about schedule * we must decide when we shall request payment from EC (who have agreed to pay when we are "halfway" to P3 AZ concluded by asking: if P3 is not part of the second cycle, what is the outcome of the second cycle? AZ also asked what the schedule would be between now and December, what the consequences will be if the editors have more time released for the TEI, when the editors would like to have their time increased, and when the editors will prepare a time table for December to June. 1.5 Dictionary Work Group Meeting The next stages of the dictionary work should be to * inventory outstanding problems in the draft AI5 D17 (RA, MSM) * ask FT to read it as a neutral party (RA) * encode as many of John Fought and Carol Van Ess-Dykema's examples as possible (RA, NI) * seek for some examples from historical dictionaries (NI, RA, AZ) Actions are assigned to those indicated: ACTION: RA, NI to inventory remaining problems in new draft Due: asap Document number: TEI AI5 D17 ACTION: RA to ask Frank Tompa to read AI5 D17 as a neutral party Due: asap Document number: TEI AI5 D17 ACTION: RA, NI to encode as many of John Fought and Carol Van Ess-Dykema's examples as possible Due: asap ACTION: NI, RA, AZ to look for examples from historical dictionaries Due: asap The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m., and resumed at 9:50 a.m. on Sat- urday 26 September. 2 FRIDAY 2.1 Completion of TEI P2 (continued) SH asked whether we should strive to finish P3 by June 1993, or only P2. The committee discussed the difference between P2 and P3; AZ reminded the group that P3 was originally conceived as the final report of the TEI, which would not be an ongoing project. Since we now expect the project to continue, we could view P2 as the completion of the sec- ond cycle and P3 as the first work item at the beginning of the third cycle. Following up on suggestions by RA and NI, SH suggested that P3 should be a simple compilation of the fascicles of P2, revised to reflect the public reaction to the fascicles. AZ asked how long such a revision might take. MSM described the mechanism now in place for managing com- ment: for each chapter, a file of pending changes is maintained, with lists of changes requested and/or agreed upon between the editors and the work groups. AZ observed that with such a mechanism in place, the completion of P2 would see the set of changes to P2 already agreed upon, and the installation of the changes might take as little as two months. He asked the editors for confirmation; LB agreed that if only a certain level of comment had come in, we could certainly complete P3 in a couple of months, but that there was no way of knowing how much comment would come in or how serious the problems might be which are identified. AZ, MSM, and LB suggested that whatever the comments might be, it should be possible to produce P3 from P2 in two or three months, if only by defin- ing P3 as the document which can be produced from P2 within that fixed period. Changes which would take longer would have to result in simply deleting a chapter or section from P3, and putting that problem on the list of work items for the third cycle. AZ suggested that the editors set up a mechanism for circulating comments to the work groups for action. They agreed; they plan to use Wendy Plotkin to channel the dis- cussion and TEI-TECH for distributing the problems to the work group heads. ACTION: MSM to set up mechanism with WP to handle comment on P2 Due: asap; report requested for next SC meeting RA pointed out that we need to try to elicit useful response; this was agreed. SH summarized the results of the discussion: * TEI P2 will be a simple collection of the fascicles originally released independently; it may never be produced as a document in a single binding. * A mechanism is needed for filtering and routing comments on TEI P2: Wendy Plotkin (WP) is to filter comments, forward to appropriate work groups, and keep track of open questions. * TEI P3 will be regarded as the final product of this second cycle, incorporating TEI P2 revised according to comments, with no new chapters, but allowing minor technical changes, presentational changes, and possibly some deletions. SH pointed out that at some point we must at some point tell those waiting for the TEI Guidelines that "this is it, you can get started". That is, we must make clear to potential users that the technical con- tent of the Guidelines is stable in TEI P2 and will not be changed radi- cally in TEI P3. AZ said he was concerned that the work of tracking comments really be doable by WP, and really be done by WP; it would be disastrous if it fell upon MSM's shoulders. We must be certain to discharge the editors from responsibility for interaction with the WGs on the topic of the revisions. MSM and SH assured AZ that WP is capable of handling the intellectual issues of routing the comments and handling interaction with the work groups. RA suggested that 30 June be accepted as a firm deadline for TEI P3, and the three month period for preparation of P3 force the abandonment of any chapters of P2 not finished by 31 March 1993. This was not agreed to. AZ asked the editors when they now estimated the completion of P2. MSM gave the date 30 June 1992. After a brief break, the editors presented their partition of the chapters of TEI P2 into four groups, based on priority; this grouping was used in formulating the schedule in TEI ED A23; The editors also gave their estimates of the number of editor half-days (henceforth units) for the 4 groups of chapters: 86 units for first-priority chap- ters, 52 units for the group 2, 48 units for group 3, and 119 units for group 4. 1. Top priority * AB: about the Guidelines * SG: summary of SGML * ST: structure of DTDs * CO: core tags * PR: prose * DR: drama * TE: terminological data * CC: corpora and collections * SA: segmentation and alignment 2. Second priority * VE: verse * DI: dictionaries * AI: simple analysis and interpretation * FS: feature structures * TC: text criticism 3. Third priority * LM: letters and memos * PH: manuscripts, analytic bibliography, and physical descrip- tion * AH: additional tags for header * SH: structured header * FD: feature system declaration * TD: tag set documentation 4. Fourth priority * NH: non-hierarchical matter * MD: user modifications * LO: local installation * ND: names and dates * WD: writing system declaration * CR: recognition of canonical references * XF: sample feature-system declaration for grammatical annota- tion * XT: sample tag set documentation * CF: TEI conformance * IN: use of TEI in interchange * FT: formulae and tables * XW: standard writing system declarations * UD: user-defined base tag sets * CE: certainty * GD: graphs and digraphs * GF: graphics and figures * OS: TEI and other standards At the editors' inquiry, the committee expressed a preference to move corpus-related chapters forward as far as possible. In the course of discussion, the decision of the previous day was confirmed and clarified: unless MSM is uncomfortable with giving up his university-related activities completely, he should request 100% release time for the period January to June (to begin even before 1 January if possible); if he is uncomfortable with moving his salary completely onto soft money, or is unable to persuade his management to release him 100%, he should request 75% time or 80% time. LB will move to 75% time unless complications arise with OUCS. After long calculation, it was estimated that if the editors work half time, as up til now, P2 should be completed at the end of October. If the editors both work three-quarters time, it should be completed at the end of July; if MSM works full time, it should be completed in mid- June. During the lunch break, the committee discussed with some vigor which chapters we could be 100% sure of finishing by June. MSM named groups 1-3, plus 3 chapters of group 4. LB named a similar, slightly more opti- mistic set of chapters. AZ suggested defining P2 as comprising classes 1 to 3 of the priori- ties list, with some chapters from class 4, P2 to appear by the end of June. P3 will appear between October 1993 and January 1994. The tech- nical review meeting should be set for June, or as soon as classes 1-3 are completed. The AB can be convened in January or February 1994. AZ said this would allow us to request the third payment when groups 1 and 2 are finished (ca. March 1993), and the fourth payment as soon as P2 has been completed and we have a program of work for the third cycle (ca. July 1993). The editors were asked to produce, by the end of the week, a minimal table of contents for P2; this may involve rearrangement of the classes of chapters at their discretion, but chapters now in groups 1 and 2 should not move to groups 3 or 4. 2.2 Budget, Current Financial Status It was agreed that of the 44,000 ECU now on hand in Pisa, 24,000 should be sent to Oxford as previously agreed, upon request by SH, to arrive about the middle of December, and 10,000 to Chicago to hold in reserve for future travel costs. 10,000 ECU should remain in Pisa, for use in DARPA cooperation. ACTION: SH to write AZ confirming that we have committed 10000 ECU which needs to be sent to Chicago Due: asap 2.3 Future of the TEI 2.3.1 TEI SC G14, Funding Proposal The group discussed the draft distributed by DW. LB was unhappy that the draft does not reflect the proposals made at the last meeting for a central role for the technical review committee. SH pointed out by ref- erence to the minutes that those proposals had not commanded the consen- sus of the committee. LB and AZ discussed whether the steering commit- tee should continue to exist as a distinct body. NI felt that the organization described was excessively top-heavy; more emphasis needs to be placed on the work groups, and less on the higher-level positions. She also suggested it might be useful to get NSF and NEH together in a meeting with us, to discuss not funding for us, but funding for projects we direct. RA thought that might be a good approach. AZ did not understand the need for three directors; he would prefer to have one director and two editors. He also felt that $35,000 for the work groups is too little; it should be much more than 10% of the total budget. SH explained some of the rationale for the structure; too much of the SC's time has been spent doing things which could have been done by a project manager: planning meetings, supervising day to day work, etc. The proposal would reduce the role of the steering committee to fund- raising, and policy-making; the work of implementing policy and doing day to day management would fall on the project manager, rather than on MSM and the head of the SC. AZ continued his comments. The term 'director' applied to the leader of a project would certainly raise eyebrows in European funding agen- cies; 'director' suggests a structure, rather than a project. We need, in the next revision, to reduce the bureaucratic aspect and increase the scientific aspect. The committee discussed at great length what role independently fund- ed work groups should have in the future work of the TEI. No consensus was reached. In summary, SH asked what the committe would like to see done with this document. AZ expressed a desire to confer informally with possible European funding sources; but he will not show this document to them in its current state. If it is shown to American sources, it must be clearly labeled provisional, so that AZ can revise it before showing it to European sources. 2.4 Editors' Report on Other Activities SH asked the editors to report on their commitments for the coming months. MSM will receive a visit from Richard Knowles, the general editor of the Variorum Shakespeare, who is interested in seeing whether SGML can handle variorum editions. In October, MSM will give the closing keynote at SGML '92; after that his next commitment is for the MLA convention in December. LB will go to Pisa on 2-4 November to attend the Network Ser- vices Conference; he has also been invited to Paris for 13 October to talk about the TEI to RIAO. 2.5 Publication and Dissemination of P2, P3, and Related Material SH asked NI about the status of the CHum issue; NI reported that peo- ple are now writing their papers. LB reminded the committee that we have been invited to publish a sec- ond edition of Modeling Historical Data. SH was asked to confer with Dan Greenstein about it. ACTION: SH to discuss MHD with Dan Greenstein Due: no date given 2.6 Any Other Business SH had a call from a CIMI museum information network representative asking whether the TEI will send a representative to their steering com- mittee. The committee encouraged SH to accept the invitation. LB also expressed personal interest in this topic. MSM reported that he has had formal requests for affiliation with the TEI from the Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen and from a representative of the Publications Committee of the American Academy of Religion. The committee agreed to consider these requests a propos of any future consideration of the role of affiliated projects in the future of the TEI. 2.7 Dates of Future Meetings Next meeting: progress on P2, future planning, APs. New Jersey, so DW can be present. Subject to constraints in DW's schedule, it was scheduled for 29-30 November. Draft September 29, 1992 (18:17:24)