Minutes of the Second Meeting <title>Of the Text Analysis and Interpretation Committee <title>Of the Text Encoding Initiative. <author>D. Terence Langendoen <docnum>TEI &docfile. <date>&docdate. Olympic Room, Hyatt Regency Hotel, Washington, DC, USA Friday, 29 December 1989, 09:00 to 16:45 <attend> Present: D. Terence Langendoen (chair), Stephen Anderson, Robert Ingria, Mitchell Marcus, William Poser, Beatrice Santorini, Gary Simons; Nancy Ide (TEI Steering Committee), Michael Sperberg-McQueen (TEI Steering Committee and Editor), Sandra Fulmer (Research Assistant to Langendoen, who took notes on the discussion) </attend> </titlep> </frontm> <body> The discussion ranged over the types of linguistic analysis and interpretation that should be encoded. It was agreed that we should be aiming at an encoding scheme that is capable of representing detailed analyses of particular examples within any theoretical framework for which linguistic analysis can be expressed in the form of interconnected directed acyclic graphs (essentially any current theory). Whatever we come up must also reduce to reasonable and easily used schemes for encoding simple aspects of linguistic analysis by hand, such as part-of-speech labeling, marking of syllabic structure, decomposition of complex words into constituent morphs, etc. Much of the discussion concerned problems of morphological markup, as "test cases", such as the interleaving of consonant root elements with vocalisms in a 'binyan' as in Semitic forms such as 'katabti' (root 'k...t...b', vocalism 'a...a' (possibly just 'a', which "spreads" to the two vowel positions in the binyan CVCVC), suffix 'ti'), ablaut relations, as in English 'sing' vs. 'sang', and morphological deletion, as in the analysis of the Danish imperative that Steve Anderson provided. Steve argued that the full encoding scheme must have the power to represent entire morphological derivations; this idea was endorsed also for phonological and syntactic markup, and some discussion was devoted to the question of how to represent derivations in SGML. Gary Simons argued that each subcommittee needs to identify the types of data structures that are needed in their respective domains, and he agreed to circulate a general statement about data types for linguistic analysis by mid-January. The subcommittee heads (Poser for phonology, Simons for morphology, Marcus for syntax and Amsler for dictionaries) are also responsible to complete and circulate by 31 January the first draft of the statement of needed data structures for their respective areas. </body> </gdoc>

.* TEI Document No: AI M2 .* Title: Minutes, A&I meeting, December 89 .* Drafted: DTL, 15 Jan 90 .* Revised: MSM 23 Apr 90 (into Waterloo GML) .* .im gmlpaper ;.* Use GMLPAPER or GMLGUIDE (or -MLA) .sr docfile = &sysfnam. ;.sr docversion = 'Final' .im teigml .* Document proper begins. Minutes of the Second Meeting <title>Of the Text Analysis and Interpretation Committee <title>Of the Text Encoding Initiative. <author>D. Terence Langendoen <docnum>TEI &docfile. <date>&docdate. Olympic Room, Hyatt Regency Hotel, Washington, DC, USA Friday, 29 December 1989, 09:00 to 16:45 <attend> Present: D. Terence Langendoen (chair), Stephen Anderson, Robert Ingria, Mitchell Marcus, William Poser, Beatrice Santorini, Gary Simons; Nancy Ide (TEI Steering Committee), Michael Sperberg-McQueen (TEI Steering Committee and Editor), Sandra Fulmer (Research Assistant to Langendoen, who took notes on the discussion) </attend> </titlep> </frontm> <body> The discussion ranged over the types of linguistic analysis and interpretation that should be encoded. It was agreed that we should be aiming at an encoding scheme that is capable of representing detailed analyses of particular examples within any theoretical framework for which linguistic analysis can be expressed in the form of interconnected directed acyclic graphs (essentially any current theory). Whatever we come up must also reduce to reasonable and easily used schemes for encoding simple aspects of linguistic analysis by hand, such as part-of-speech labeling, marking of syllabic structure, decomposition of complex words into constituent morphs, etc. Much of the discussion concerned problems of morphological markup, as "test cases", such as the interleaving of consonant root elements with vocalisms in a 'binyan' as in Semitic forms such as 'katabti' (root 'k...t...b', vocalism 'a...a' (possibly just 'a', which "spreads" to the two vowel positions in the binyan CVCVC), suffix 'ti'), ablaut relations, as in English 'sing' vs. 'sang', and morphological deletion, as in the analysis of the Danish imperative that Steve Anderson provided. Steve argued that the full encoding scheme must have the power to represent entire morphological derivations; this idea was endorsed also for phonological and syntactic markup, and some discussion was devoted to the question of how to represent derivations in SGML. Gary Simons argued that each subcommittee needs to identify the types of data structures that are needed in their respective domains, and he agreed to circulate a general statement about data types for linguistic analysis by mid-January. The subcommittee heads (Poser for phonology, Simons for morphology, Marcus for syntax and Amsler for dictionaries) are also responsible to complete and circulate by 31 January the first draft of the statement of needed data structures for their respective areas. </body> </gdoc>