Minutes of the TEI Steering Committee Meeting Morristown, 29-30 November 1992 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen TEI SC M28 December 1, 1992 ( 9:34:48) Draft December 1, 1992 ( 9:34:48) 1 SUNDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 1992 1.1 Apologies for Absence The meeting convened at 10:30 a.m., 29 November 1992. Present were: * Robert Amsler (RA) * Lou Burnard (LB) * Susan Hockey (SH), chairing * Nancy Ide (NI) * C. M. Sperberg-McQueen (MSM) * Don Walker (DW) Antonio Zampolli (AZ) was absent Sunday 29 October, owing to commitments in Luxembourg, but present Monday 30 October. 1.2 Minutes of the Last Meeting (TEI SC M27) No corrections being offered, TEI SC M27 was accepted as distributed. 1.3 Matters Arising from the Minutes 1.3.1 Carried Over from Previous Meetings 1. ISBN: still pending, awaits decision about the nature of the entity requesting the publisher's number -- TEI or the sponsoring organizations?(SH) 2. New Budget for NEH: drafted, revision still pending, awaits time to do it and cleaner data in the financial databases (MSM) 3. Draft Tutorial: still pending (SH) 4. Outline of chapter LO (63) to Syun Tutiya: done 5. Revised schedule of P2: done (described in TEI ED A23) 6. Revision of funding proposal: done (text in SC G14) 7. Mailing of information to Nagao: done 8. Response to EBT: DW, SH, and MSM discussed with SJD at the SGML '92 conference, with no agreement to do anything specific at present. SH reported briefly that EBT do not appear to want an exclusive license. Several of these actions were carried forward: ACTION: SH to acquire ISBN publisher's prefix for TEI or for sponsoring organizations Due: no date ACTION: MSM to revise budget for the fiscal year July 1992 through June 1993, circulate among steering committee, and (no one objecting) submit to NEH Due: no firm date, but sooner rather than later Document number: TEI B19 ACTION: SH to draft generic tutorial for TEI P2 Due: when feasible Document number: TEI U1 Several new actions were also assigned as a result of the discussion of these items. ACTION: MSM / Wendy Plotkin (WP) to send to DW and SH a list of all docu- ments which went to Makato Nagao Due: asap ACTION: WP to send duplicate of Nagao's packet to Syun Tutiya Due: asap ACTION: MSM send expense summary information to Nagao and Tutiya Due: as soon as MSM, DW, SH have been able to agree on the pre- cise information to be provided 1.3.2 Matters from September 1992 Meeting The following action items were assigned at the September, 1992 meet- ing (SC M27): 1. Inventory items remaining in dictionary draft 2. ask Frank Tompa to read AI5 D17: done 3. Encode Fought/Van Ess-Dykema examples: still pending (waiting for clarity on cross references, etc.) 4. Look for examples from historical dictionaries: AZ has sent a small number to NI and RA 5. Letter to AZ confirming commitment of 10,000 ECU to Chicago: done; AZ has plans for further funding, which he can report on on Monday 6. Discussion with Dan Greenstein (DG) about publication of Modeling Historical Data: still pending (SH) 7. CIMI (Computer Interchange of Museum Information) representation: SH reported that this liaison is proceeding. NI reported that after waiting some time for comments from MSM, she and JV sent their draft (AI5 D17) to the work group. Some further information is needed from other groups, e.g. on cross references. RA said he expected to call for a vote from the work group, to settle any technical matters still in dispute. DW suggested that a comment period be announced first, rather than voting it up or down immediately as a single text. RA will do so, and also invite Fought and Van Ess-Dykema to work on encoding their examples using the new tag set. ACTION: RA to ask AI5 for comments on draft TEI AI5 D17 by end of December 1992 Due: asap ACTION: RA to invite John Fought and Carol Van Ess-Dykema to test draft AI5 D17 by using its tag set to encode some of their examples Due: asap ACTION: NI to encode at least a few of the Fought/Van Ess-Dykema examples Due: 31 January 1993 Document number: AI5 T1 NI reported that Jean Veronis gave a three-hour talk on the TEI dic- tionary encoding tags to the staff of the Trésor de la Langue Française (TLF), who were enthusiastic and felt that the TEI scheme could be used to encode their dictionary. DW suggested that the TLF interest be reported to the work group, to motivate quick return on comments. MSM asked RA and NI whether the projected publication date of mid-February can be held to; NI felt that mid-February might be over- optimistic. No specific revision of the schedule in ED A23 was under- taken, however. MSM reported on a discussion with DG in Chicago recently; DG feels the current text of Modeling Historical Data is not commercially publi- shable, but a new collection might be possible, which would include the most useful of the MHD essays, possibly with new essays bringing the material up to date and describing the TEI solutions to the problems identified in the MHD essays. DG and MSM had agreed that the major advantage of the TEI publishing the collection would be that we can use it as an experiment in publishing over the imprint of the sponsoring associations. MSM and LB felt that such an experiment would be useful, but they cannot possibly themselves handle the preparation. Possibly Wendy Plot- kin can handle the preparation of copy. LB also pointed out that pub- lishing the collection would be good for the TEI's publication record. A discussion of publication issues ensued, with particular attention to publication and distribution by a commercial or university press, either "by the press, for the TEI" or over the imprint of the TEI. Upon SH's inquiry about the financial commitments involved, DW reported that ACL pays MIT per copy for printing and distribution of journal issues (ca. $3/copy?); MIT arranges printing and bills ACL. MIT Press is responsible for institutional subscription list and funds associated with it. Proceedings are done differently: DW acts as a contractor with the printer and handles distribution directly; ACL is now entering arrangements with Morgan Kaufman for them to advertise and distribute ACL proceedings volumes. MSM moved that the TEI publish a new edition of MHD, over our imprint, with a commercial publisher or university press, if it can be done for less that 3000 ECU of our funds. The motion was amended to cover only the revised collection proposed by DG, with a new set of articles bringing the topic up to date and emphasizing solutions. This motion carried without dissent. ACTION: SH to communicate this decision to DG and ask for a table of con- tents with estimates of page lengths and production schedule, and a list of possibly appropriate publishers Due: asap ACTION: SH to take up discussions with publishers seeking a suitable press to handle the book, and report back to the SC (which reserves the right to choose the publisher); publishers approached should include at least: * Oxford UP * Cambridge UP * Kluwer Academic Publishers * Addison-Wesley * U of Chicago Press * Manchester UP Due: as appropriate 1.4 Report on Recent Communications from Syun Tutiya MSM reported that Syun Tutiya (ST) had asked the editors for permis- sion to list their names as participants in a grant proposal he has recently submitted to the International Communication Foundation. The editors have acceded, and ST has provided further information about the grant proposal and its budget: * Period: from April 1992 to March 1994 * Budget: - Travel for ST, MSM, LB: 3M yen - Travel for others: 2M yen - FTP disk and machine: 2M yen - Secretarial assistance: 1M yen - Postage and indirect cost: 1M yen On behalf of the editors, MSM apologized that the short lead time given by the invitation had precluded sufficient prior consultation with the Steering Committee before the editors had accepted ST's invitation. 1.5 Editors' Report on Other Activities MSM reported that he had attended SGML '92, at which he spoke on the outstanding problems facing further development in SGML, and for which he has filed a trip report. (These are documents TEI ED W31 and TEI ED R2, and like all documents are available from Wendy Plotkin, if not also from the UIC list server and the anonymous ftp server at sgml1.ex.ac.uk.) LB reported that he had given a seminar at the British Library in October, and attended a corpus workshop in Bonn and a meeting of the Association of Italian Teachers of English in Parma. He has also dis- cussed work with Hartlib papers at the University of Sheffield. LB reported that the British Library has given a grant to M. Deegan for Peter Robinson to write a report on the usability of TEI coding for manuscripts. The Oxford Text Archive has written a TEI-subset DTD, which it is using in making texts SGML conformant. Finally, MSM report- ed on contacts with Debbie LaPeyre and Tommie Usdin of ATLIS consulting, which has developed the data capture DTD for the Library of Congress's American Memory CD-ROM; the data capture DTD is substantially a subset of TEI P2 (indeed, also of TEI P1), with a few extensions and some renamings. He thought it would be relatively simple matter to write the DTD subset declarations necessary to make this DTD fully TEI-conformant, once the DTDs of TEI P2 are complete. [For future commitments, see also section 1.7, "Schedule for Completion of P2,". -MSM] 1.6 Budget: Report on Current Status After lunch, the committee reviewed the schedule for the remainder of the meeting, and agreed to take the report on the current status of the budget next. MSM reported that we have spent about $38,000 of the Mellon money, about $292,000 of the NEH money, and about 95000 ECU of EEC money has passed through Chicago since the beginning of the second cycle. This leaves $62,000 of Mellon funds, $117,000 of NEH cycle-two funds, and about 30,000 ECU of EEC funds still to be expended. In general, commit- ments already made will fully exhaust the remaining NEH funds; thus we appear to have approximately the remaining Mellon funds and the remain- ing EEC funds for discretionary expenses; MSM will attempt to verify this in a careful review of the records. Supporting the Chicago office for the year 1992-93 will cost approxi- mately $88,500, about $15,000 is required for the North Americans in the AB meeting; if we allocate the remaining $14,000 of NEH funds to SC travel, we will have spent the NEH funds in full; any further meetings must be paid for from the $60,000 of Mellon funds and the 30,000 ECU of EEC funds. SH asked MSM to verify the Mellon figures, as the figure of $60,000 remaining seemed to her high. ACTION: MSM to confirm amounts of funds remaining Due: no date specified (asap) 1.7 Schedule for Completion of P2 After a break, the committee further reviewed the agenda; despite the absence of AZ, who has always taken a minute interest in the schedule for production of TEI P2, that topic was taken up next. The committee reviewed ED A23, which the editors had distributed shortly before the meeting, and discussed the status of the chapters in Groups 1 and 2. It was noted that pending changes in the core (the introduction of poetry and drama tags, and the revision of were mentioned specifically), chapter CO (core tags) might be delayed from the current week to early the following week. ACTION: MSM to send copy of the AI 7 tutorial to SH, for her information Due: asap The editors were asked to report on their progress on TEI P2 since the July meeting, with particular reference to: * finding other help on examples * reducing quality of presentation * developing a system for handling comments MSM reported that his most recent work had involved chapters (TE and CO) which have reasonable examples in their current forms; as a result, finding useful examples has not occupied as much of his time recently as it had in May and June. LB predicted that finding examples for CC and DR would not take excessive amounts of time. MSM said that the editors were finding it difficult to implement the plan of speeding production by allowing lower quality work to go out, but suggested that a critical reading of chapter PR (prose) would show that they were giving it their best effort. MSM reported that WP has developed a system for handling comments, which is described in document ED A29 (available upon request). This system has been applied in routing the comments received from Jerome Saltzer, and comments from Glenn Adams on character set issues are in progress. The editors also described their future commitments, which may imp- inge upon the completion of TEI P2. LB listed the following: * will attend HyTime workshop in Paris next week (2 days) * will consult with Claus Huitfeldt in Oxford (also next week) * will attend an SGML Project steering committee meeting (where a pro- posal to develop a common IUIC DTD for documentation at UK universi- ty computer centers will be discussed) * will attend a BNC project meeting in mid-January * will attend an OII meeting on 20 January MSM reported only the following: * on 8 December he will talk on electronic texts to a library profes- sional development program * on 29 December he will sit on a panel at the Modern Language Associ- ation convention and give a progress report on the TEI The meeting adjourned for the day at 5:00 p.m. 2 MONDAY, 30 NOVEMBER 1992 2.1 Future of the TEI The committee reconvened at 10:00 on Monday, 30 November 1992. SH asked for comments on document SC G14; DW reviewed the major changes in the document since the previous version. These included changes to the budget presentation for the transitional period, and to the structure and budget given for the long-term project. The latter has been cut down by almost $100,000. NI asked that money be earmarked for subsidizing some work group members (as we have subsidized SJ and TL in the past). This was not agreed. LB asked what was meant by the "institutional base" which needed to be established for the TEI, and suggested amending the text to "an institutional base for management of the project"; MSM suggested a fur- ther amendment, changing the text to "an institutional base for adminis- tration of the project"; this was agreed. AZ suggested it was problematic to request funds for a transitional phase, one of whose functions was to define the work of the future, if in the very proposal the outlines of that future were sketched out, as they are here. If such a sketch is required for North American funding agencies, it can be included in a proposal for such funds, but this should remain a specifically American speculation about the future, and should not be regarded as binding on the TEI as a whole. DW pointed out that the transitional function in question was the working out of a detailed plan of work for the long-term future. The discussion of the long-term future in SC G14 states only the general objectives; he asked whether AZ objected to the objectives specified. AZ replied that the budget figures included involved a very specific notion of the TEI's structure and activity, much more specific than DW was admitting. Specifically, the budget foresees the TEI as a discus- sion forum, to work on developing consensus for work performed elsewhere and had no provision for technical work done by the TEI itself. DW objected that (a) the project leaders are to be conceived as performing very detailed technical work, and (b) funding for specific development activities is to be raised separately: the proposal in question is only for the central activities. We have always recognized that the TEI can- not be a wholly self-contained project, and some work must inevitably be performed outside our own structures. AZ continued by pointing out that we do not foresee in detail the scientific focus of the work to be done in the future. If we submit a proposal which binds us firmly to a particular view of the future, this will quite likely lead to problems in the future, particularly since the funding administrators who will evaluate the proposal will focus very closely on any indications we give as to the future structure and budg- et, possibly to the exclusion of the prose discussion. AZ also predicted a further contract from the EEC, running from the completion of the current contract until perhaps August 1994 and includ- ing the work items listed under the transitional phase in this document. NI proposed omitting the entire text of the document from the para- graph beginning "Because" to the beginning of the conclusion. No action was taken. SH asked why AZ was now so opposed to the description given in SC G14 of the future structure of the project, pointing out that two years ago AZ had drawn precisely this structure on the board, as a design for the future. MSM asked AZ how the text in hand could possibly be interpreted as binding us irrevocably to a particular structure, budget, or line of action in the future. AZ replied by pointing out that if instead of Transitional Phase we called it a Feasibility Study, no one would fund us because we clearly have prejudged the results. If our sketch of a possible future is clearly a future which the funders do not want, we run the risk of a refusal: in such a case it would be better to leave our discussion vague. RA observed that very little of the budget looked like funding for actual work: only for thinking and writing. Evaluation and similar activities will draw in computer scientists and similar people who will need funding. He also suggested that some of what is described as being done in work groups should be described as workshops, instead (which are one-shot activities which produce a document). NI agreed with AZ that the discussion of the future was too precise and specific. She also suggested we view the transitional period dif- ferently, which involves a different reading of what the TEI has been. The transition period must look very hard at scientific work that needs to be done; that is the crucial activity and must come first. The other activities listed are all good, but there is no chance at all that we can accomplish any serious subset of them: we are hopelessly under- staffed for the activities given. SH suggested that the document suffered from an attempt to be all things to all readers. It is clear that different styles of proposal will be needed for North American and European. We do have to finish what we originally planned to do, and we need American funding very soon. DW argued against AZ's identification of the Transitional Period with a feasibility study: if we have not demonstrated feasibility after five years of work, we deserve no further funding. Also, if we have no insights now into the longer term structure, our proposal amounts to a confession that the last five years have been a failure. American fund- ing agencies will definitely require a longer term view in the proposal, even the proposal for the transitional period. The Europeans have a commitment now to the TEI in principle; but the European situation changes rapidly and requires fast decisions, rendering rigid longer term commitments impossible. The Japanese critically need a long term per- spective; it may not be final, or right, but it must allow them to ask for funding for the long term. AZ denied having suggested renaming the transitional period as a fea- sibility study; the analogy is that in both cases the outcome is not and cannot be predefined. He proposed, as a compromise, formulating a pro- posal for the future with a budget but no structure. The budget can be given under general rubrics, giving the approximate amount of money involved, without specifying how many half-FTE staff members, etc., will be involved. No action was taken on this suggestion. DW replied that each region must have someone centrally involved in the project; the current structure shows that the EC does want to have a clear European involvement in the funded positions. The U.S. agencies will of course not care if the entire staff is American, but neither the European nor the Japanese agencies will be comfortable with that -- thus the description of the structure is important to forestall potential objections that the Americans have all the control. Similarly, we know already that folding the administrative responsibilities in with the technical responsibilities has caused serious problems for MSM. SH asked whether AZ also wanted to continue the responsibility of the spon- soring organizations for the project, or not. AZ reiterated that he would be very uncomfortable approaching the EC with this document. He understands that the Americans and the Japanese may have distinct needs. We must find some compromise for any document that goes outside the TEI; we can discuss separately whether we actually disagree as to the realities of the future: the point now is what can be said to external bodies. This is a possible model but AZ is not sure that this is compatible with the situation we will find in two years. NI replied to DW's points by suggesting that the claims can be watered down: instead of planning a specific structure with three project leaders, we can simply state the constraint that all three regions must have representation in the organization. Similarly no project manager should be mentioned; instead, a simple budget line for administration should be included. The expectations outlined here are much too detailed and much too firm. She proposed that the first para- graph of the section be retained, and the project leaders mentioned only as a possibility. No action was taken. RA suggested rephrasing item 9 of the list of activities ("prepare a detailed proposal for the Long Term Project"); it sounds too much like asking the funding agencies to fund preparation of a proposal for them. MSM pointed out examples of agencies (scil. NEH) doing just that. After a break, SH summarized the topics raised: * who is SC G14 intended for? North American funding bodies and Japa- nese collaborators; AZ reports that a different style is needed for European agencies * AZ is concerned that the long-term future structure ought not to be defined with such precision * all are agreed that the scientific program needs to be described more concretely * we must today finish with some clear step forward, since we will run out of money in September 1993 at the latest * completing P2 will bring us to mid-June; we do not have much slack * we have several activities to perform during the transitional period * we must decide whether we are going to prepare multiple distinct funding documents or whether we are going to write a single document for all or most funders AZ mentioned another difference between grant situations; either we propose a project and ask an agency "Do you want to fund this?", or we describe an existing, ongoing project and ask "Do you want the Europeans to be able to participate in this?" SC G14 makes a proposal for a project (in the first mode); AZ has approached the EC with a proposal for participation in an already ongoing project, which will otherwise continue without them. AZ does not ask that our approaches to DARPA and NSF actively support his method of approach to the EC, but does ask that the documents we give to them not destroy the basis of his approach. DW agreed that the TEI did exist as an ongoing project, and this is what made possible AZ's approach to the EC. In seven months, however, that ongoing project will cease to exist, except for the funding AZ has obtained from the EC. Now we must find funding to continue a successful project, and must find a mission for the project which can command fund- ing. AZ objected that the structure envisaged for the long term clearly indicates the type of activity to be performed; in his opinion, it is too early to tell. AZ asked whether it was anticipated that we would continue to produce chapters of the Guidelines and other documents, in the future. All agreed that we would. AZ asked who would be editing these documents; MSM replied that this would have to be a function of the project lead- ers. AZ objected to this on the grounds that DW had earlier given an eloquent argument that we must separate precisely the editorial and project-leadership functions. MSM objected that AZ was confusing project leadership and project administration. AZ asked whether the committee agreed that SC G14, if it continues to contain a discussion of the long-term future structure, should not go to the EC. In this case, we were now discussing the structure as a topic in itself, and not the text of a document to go to Europe. It was so agreed. SH asked where SC G14 would be going immediately; DW said it would go to NSF and DARPA. SH asked whether we needed to begin tailoring the document to their individual needs. Specifically, NEH requires a detailed account of what will happen to the project and its products after the expiration of their grant. DW felt that for a pre-proposal description, no such specific tailoring would be needed. All we need is a text that commands our own intellectual assent, that will elicit some favorable response from U.S. funding agencies, and that will provide useful guidance for the Japanese. MSM suggested focusing on the first topic, and returning, as AZ had suggested, to the discussion of what structures and activities we wish to have in the future, independent of what may or may not be said in SC G14. The discussion, however, turned immediately to the text of that document. AZ noted first of all that the proposal spends only a page and a half on the transitional period that is being funded, and five pages on the long-term future. DW pointed out that the structure for the transitional period needs less discussion than that for the long- term future, since it remains unchanged from the present; current struc- ture will be described in an appendix. He also stressed that no one will fund the transitional period if they are not prepared to make a tentative commitment to the long-term future. AZ and DW agreed that it would be good to have further discussion of the actual scientific work. AZ observed that his approach differed, in that he did not describe this as a transition period in any discussions with the EC. This has enabled him to avoid having to describe the long-term future as the target of any bridge period. Instead, he has focused on the simple fact that we are two years late with TEI P2, and that we must finish the Guidelines. AZ and DW discussed for some time the issues related to specifying the details of the structure and budget for the long-term future. Even- tually, AZ asked whether it would not be sufficient, for the North American funding agencies, to provide no details for the long-term future budget and structure, but only broad, non-itemized summaries. E.g. "the level of required support anticipated for the long-term future is approximately the same as the current support." RA distinguished two issues in the discussion: we need to get a pre- proposal description to the agencies, and we need to be more cognizant of the difference DARPA makes between basic research and development work. AZ asked whether the North Americans were really convinced that the American funding agencies would require this level of detail about the structure and funding for the long-term future. DW felt so, NI felt no, SH reserved judgement. RA stressed that in a pre-proposal document, the only thing required is enough information to enable the funding agency to form an initial opinion of the project and proposal. After lunch, SH suggested attempting to agree on an outline for a revision of SC G14, so that work can proceed on it. She proposed keep- ing the first four paragraphs, then modifying the last paragraph of I (beginning "It is clear"). Perhaps, she suggested, we need a new term for Transitional Period. DW suggested a new section discussing the fact that this is continuing activity, international, involving a new region. He also suggested that the text must recognize explicitly that funding (and the grounds upon which funding is given) will differ in the three regions; this latter proposal met with sharp resistance. AZ suggested distinguishing several possible view of ths overall structure of the project: one view is that three distinct projects are in progress, with distinct managers and activities, with the SC provid- ing coordination and other links, mostly by means of joint meetings (of SC, of work groups, of project leaders). This is the view AZ perceives in document SC G14 (if you have three Project Leaders, do you not neces- sarily end with three projects?). DW interjected that he did not think this document could sustain such an interpretation; AZ cited in support of his view the disappearance of the "editors" and their replacement by "project leaders", from which he inferred the disappearance of the edi- torial function. Another view, he continued, would be that there is only one project, with only one project leader: in this view, one must not stress the differences in activity between the countries. At most, one may say that each region will finance the expenses incurred by par- ticipants from the region, plus a portion of the common infrastructure. AZ concluded that we have, on the evidence of this discussion, as yet an insufficiently clear idea of the future work of the project. Most importantly, the description of the project leaders nowhere mentions any work in preparing documentation or other editorial work. MSM asked that it be clarified whether the term Project Leader was intended to signal a change from the current role of the editors, or was intended only as a more appropriate name than Editor for the work the two are now doing. DW confirmed that the latter was the case, with the proviso that the change in name was intended to convey a more just estimation of the importance of the editors' non-editorial activities. AZ objected to this plan for the project leaders, arguing that the presence or absence of massive funding for standardization in Europe will radically change the situation: it is simply too early to fix on a single structural model for the long-term future. Of particular concern to AZ was that the breadth of responsibilities described must almost necessarily exceed the capacities of any single individual, or three individuals. By comparison, he described the organization of Eagles: each area of research has a single coordinator, because no single indi- vidual can coorrdinate research in, for example, both acoustics and lin- guistic formalisms. Each group also has a co-editor to prepare the written output, and a single overall editor works with the materials prepared by these co-editors. NI applauded AZ's remarks and said they reflected her views as well. The completion of the Guidelines will change the environment of the TEI radically, and our plans for the long-term future must reflect that. DW observed that AZ had argued, first of all, that instead of three project leaders one needs only one, and then that no one person could do the job and that a team is needed instead. DW asked NI for specific suggestions for changes to the list of activities for the transition period. She suggested that item 4 ("Pre- pare reports and publications to provide more effective dissemination of information") be made more precise. SH observed that the list of activities was unchanged from drafts which have been before the committee since September, without eliciting comment either then or since. She also observed that the original text of this document, written about eighteen months ago, addressed the same issues AZ and NI are raising. Specifically as a result of the comments of the committee, greater emphasis has been placed on continuing techni- cal work. Requests, now, that the continuing technical work be de- emphasized in comparison with the other activities merely show that we have come round in a full circle. Resuming her outline of possible changes to the document, SH suggest- ed that the fifth paragraph ("It is clear") ought to specify what is being sought with this document and that other funds are being sought from European and Japanese sources. The description of the short-term project should remain, and the discussion of the long-term project should be removed from this document and filed elsewhere in the TEI files. NI clarified that she does not disagree with any of the activi- ties listed in II, but fears that the list might be too diffuse to be funded. She suggested once more that the opening of III (up to the paragraph beginning "Because") be retained, and the rest simply dropped. DW felt that this would make the proposal simply and irrevocably unfun- dable, because it would lack any meaningful discussion of the future after 1994. DW observed that the we appeared to lack all consensus about the future structure of the TEI, and asked whether the committee had any consensus at all. The question was put whether the group all subscribed to the overall objectives formulated in III; no vote was taken. AZ objected very specifically to the sentence beginning "Having one Project Leader in each area ..."; DW agreed to delete the sentence. NI suggested again that the paragraph beginning "Because" and the following material be deleted, a short vague paragraph substituted, and the document submitted as soon as possible to the funding agencies. No action was taken. AZ restated his position: the SC can formulate a tentative policy, but before it is made public we must be sure it will fit within the situation we will find at the time covered. DW asked when that situ- ation would be clear. AZ estimated the fall of 1993; DW observed that the North American operation will have shut down by then, if we have no further funding. DW described with some pessimism the variation of opinion evident within the committee, and doubted, on present evidence, that we can achieve any consensus on a structure. AZ had a more optimistic view of the commmittee's ability to find a suitable structure, but reiterated his view that the time has not yet come to make any final plans for the structure of the future plan. NI recalled the two proposals before the committee: NI's proposal to omit the description of the future structure and proposal, AZ's proposal to elaborate the description of the substantive work. DW agreed to undertake the desired revisions, on condition that reactions be received in a week and that they provide specific alternative wordings. ACTION: DW, SH to revise part III Due: 11 December 1992 (conditions permitting) Document number: SC G14 ACTION: SC as a whole to provide specific comments on DW's revision of SC G14, with concrete editing suggestions, within a week of its dis- tribution Due: 18 December 1992 (adjusted accordingly, if the revision of SC G14 is distributed after or before 11 December 1992) Document number: SC G14 AZ proposed the following wording for consideration: "In the future period we recognize that we must perform the following functions: a,b,c,d. We estimate that provided experts continue to work for free, we will need about the same amount of funding, but we will observe the events in Europe and Japan, we will have feedback from our users, and adapt our structure to the situation." No specific action was taken. DW asked that MSM distribute the minutes by the end of the week, in order to assist DW in the revision of the document; MSM agreed to do so. ACTION: MSM to distribute minutes of this meeting Due: 4 Dec 1992 Document number: TEI SC M28 DW also asked that NI and anyone else with suggestions for the text pro- vide, as soon as possible, suggestions for the parts of the document to be retained. In conclusion of the topic, AZ asked that the transitional budget make clear that the EC is not asked to pay for salaries etc. at UIC. DW noted in passing that the insistence of AZ on a single head of the project, joined to the European insistence on paying only for Europeans, leads to intolerable strains on the overall budget. AZ predicted that he would have about $150,000 from now to the second half of 1994 (ca. August); this includes the amount on the current con- tract not spent so far (ca. 100,000 ECU) plus 50-60,000 new funding flowing from the new contract he had described earlier. 2.2 Any Other Business MSM reported that we have had an indirect approach (by way of Alan Melby of AI7) from Muriel Vasconcellos of the American Machine Transla- tion Association, who is interested in some mutually advantageous col- laboration with the TEI, inter alia on the topics of lexica for NLP and markup for texts undergoing MT. NI and RA called attention in this connection to Ralph Grishman's ComLex project, which Bob Ingria is connected to. SH suggested that before any further work is done on lexica, we should ensure that Yokoi's people in Japan are involved. MSM noted that Alan Melby had also mentioned the possibility of AMTA joining the participating organizations and sitting on the TEI advisory board. He suggested that we may wish at some point to open the Advisory Board to membership by any scholarly association, as long as we can eliminate the TEI's financial commitment to them. This would make it unnecessary for us to reject proposals for Advisory Board membership like those we have had to reject in the past. MSM was asked to send a suitably polite reply welcoming AMTA's inter- est and suggesting that perhaps IAMT would be a more suitable organiza- tion for membership in the Advisory Board. ACTION: MSM write Muriel Vasconcellas soliciting an approach from IAMT instead of AMTA Due: asap 2.3 Dates of Future Meetings The next meeting was scheduled for Marseilles (or Aix-en-Provence), 20-21 February 1992. NI volunteered to handle the local arrangements. Backup dates: 18-19 February; third choice: 13-14 February 1992. The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Draft December 1, 1992 ( 9:34:48)