Minutes <title>Of the Partial Steering Committee Meetings <title>Morristown, 3 June 1988 <title>Jerusalem, 6 June 1988 <author>C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <address>University of Illinois at Chicago <eaddress> <docnum>TEI SCM3 <date>11 July 1989, minor corr. &docdate <etitlep> <toc> <efrontm> <body> <h1>Morristown, 3 June 1989 Present: RA, MSM, DW. Absent: SH, NI, AZ. RA reported on a meeting at Carnegie-Mellon University, at which a good cross-section of standard encodings were discussed: ODA and SGML among them. The SGML tag set produced by the AAP has now been approved by NISO. DW observed that three NISO members had still not accepted it (NLM among them). MSM asked how the TEI should deal with lack of unanimity. What majority in the Advisory Board should suffice to approve the guidelines? DW suggested we look at the practice of the standards organizations to see exactly what they do. RA said that standards committees typically represent all affected groups. If negative votes reflect special interests of a group, then they can be discounted. Disinterested technical objections, however, are fatal. <h2>Restructuring The group next discussed the comments of those who reviewed the project proposal for the NEH, and explored ways of cutting the project back to the funding level needed. DW argued that we could view the two years of NEH support as the first phase of the project, but not as a pilot study. The full project must go ahead. RA suggested cutting back heavily on the work of committee AI (or cutting the committee entirely). MSM suggested that committee be given a narrower focus, but not eliminated, as the AAP work has already addressed the concerns of committee TR. Two possibilities seemed most promising: lexicography and literary criticism. The communities concerned with lexicographic tagging were discussed. RA suggested the industrial interest in lexicography might allow that work to be almost self-funding. At the end of the discussion, RA summarized by saying three large areas need attention by committee AI: word-by-word tagging, tagging for lexicographic processes, and literary tagging. The group agreed to a focus, during the first two years of the project, on linguistic markup of the first type. The revised work plan should specify that committees will examine the field to determine what is feasible; the project should commit itself only to <q>what is feasible<eq> or to addressing the most common and pressing issues. <h1>Jerusalem, 6 June 1989 Present: SH, NI, MSM, AZ. Absent: RA, DW. MSM began by summarizing the partial meeting in New Jersey. NI liked the idea of dissenters being asked to formulate their objections in writing. It was agreed to study the practice of standards organizations before submitting the guidelines to the advisory board. The group next discussed the funding situation and an approach to the EEC for funds for European participation in the project. AZ and MSM worked out a very rough budget for this participation. <ebody> <egdoc

.* TEI Document No: SC M 3 .* Title: Minutes from Bernardsville and Jerusalem, June 1988 .* Drafted: 8 July 89 CMSMcQ .* Revised: 11 July 1989, 1 may 1990 i.e. delay.revdate .* .im gmlpaper .sr docfile = &sysfnam. ;.sr docversion= 'Draft' .im teigml .* Document proper begins. Minutes <title>Of the Partial Steering Committee Meetings <title>Morristown, 3 June 1988 <title>Jerusalem, 6 June 1988 <author>C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <address>University of Illinois at Chicago <eaddress> <docnum>TEI SCM3 <date>11 July 1989, minor corr. &docdate <etitlep> <toc> <efrontm> <body> <h1>Morristown, 3 June 1989 Present: RA, MSM, DW. Absent: SH, NI, AZ. RA reported on a meeting at Carnegie-Mellon University, at which a good cross-section of standard encodings were discussed: ODA and SGML among them. The SGML tag set produced by the AAP has now been approved by NISO. DW observed that three NISO members had still not accepted it (NLM among them). MSM asked how the TEI should deal with lack of unanimity. What majority in the Advisory Board should suffice to approve the guidelines? DW suggested we look at the practice of the standards organizations to see exactly what they do. RA said that standards committees typically represent all affected groups. If negative votes reflect special interests of a group, then they can be discounted. Disinterested technical objections, however, are fatal. <h2>Restructuring The group next discussed the comments of those who reviewed the project proposal for the NEH, and explored ways of cutting the project back to the funding level needed. DW argued that we could view the two years of NEH support as the first phase of the project, but not as a pilot study. The full project must go ahead. RA suggested cutting back heavily on the work of committee AI (or cutting the committee entirely). MSM suggested that committee be given a narrower focus, but not eliminated, as the AAP work has already addressed the concerns of committee TR. Two possibilities seemed most promising: lexicography and literary criticism. The communities concerned with lexicographic tagging were discussed. RA suggested the industrial interest in lexicography might allow that work to be almost self-funding. At the end of the discussion, RA summarized by saying three large areas need attention by committee AI: word-by-word tagging, tagging for lexicographic processes, and literary tagging. The group agreed to a focus, during the first two years of the project, on linguistic markup of the first type. The revised work plan should specify that committees will examine the field to determine what is feasible; the project should commit itself only to <q>what is feasible<eq> or to addressing the most common and pressing issues. <h1>Jerusalem, 6 June 1989 Present: SH, NI, MSM, AZ. Absent: RA, DW. MSM began by summarizing the partial meeting in New Jersey. NI liked the idea of dissenters being asked to formulate their objections in writing. It was agreed to study the practice of standards organizations before submitting the guidelines to the advisory board. The group next discussed the funding situation and an approach to the EEC for funds for European participation in the project. AZ and MSM worked out a very rough budget for this participation. <ebody> <egdoc