IMHO, the single most significant thing we could all do to encourage the
use of TEI is to make sure that in every project we do with TEI where
materials are available online, the TEI XML is also available for view.
When I've been trying to figure out how best to approach some encoding
issue in TEI, I frequently find sites or projects where the same type of
thing has obviously been handled, but the XML of the individual files is
not available (or not easily available) for viewing.
For instance, with the Women Writers Online project, I can easily find
and view a text in HTML:
but what I'd really like to see is a link right there to show me the XML
markup of the text too. Then I could easily go from discovering a
feature of the text to finding out how it was encoded.
When we did the ACH/ALLC 2005 abstracts with P4, I made a point of
making every TEI document in the project easily viewable through the
because I'd been so frustrated by this. In future projects I'm going to
go one step further and add a transform to strip out the default
attributes, which clutter up the XML view. We've already done this with
the Graves Diary project:
I know people are nervous about doing this because it exposes their XML
to inspection and possible criticism (that has certainly been an issue
with a couple of markup people I've worked with). But the overall
effects would be that we'd all read more of each other's markup, so
emerging practice would tend to be more uniform, and novices would learn
more quickly and be less daunted because there would be lots of examples
Lou Burnard wrote:
> The Rev'd Doug Morrison-Cleary, OSL wrote:
>> As a participant in both ThML <http://www.ccel.org/ThML/> and the OSIS
>> projects <http://www.bibletechnologies.net/> I have to agree 100% with
>> Michael. Both projects have deliberately chosen to use a non-TEI schema
>> because they need something "simpler" that can be easily coded by
>> non-technical volunteers.
> This makes me feel even more depressed. If both projects actually
> investigated the TEI thoroughly (which is what "deliberately chosen"
> implies) and decided to ignore it on the grounds that it was too
> complicated then we simply are not getting the message across. Or failed
> at the time of this investigation at any rate.
> Even more depressing, on a quick scan down the links (for which thanks)
> is that some of the people associated with these projects are or have
> been serving TEI Board or Council members.
>> ThML has been around for several years (TEI P3? or earlier?) and when it
>> was first developed this was the analysis given of TEI:
>> 'The Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) application of SGML is semantically
>> rich for literary analysis but not easy to learn or tuned for
>> theological study. It doesn't offer special handling of scripture
>> references or Strongs-like reference systems, for example. Also, the
>> language is very large and the overhead required to learn and process
>> the language is high.'
> If this criticism had been made in any TEI forum, or even offline to a
> TEI editor, I am sure it would have been vigorously rebutted. I won't
> tire the patience of list readers by doing so now!
>>> From my microcosmic experience TEI has the reputation of being just too
>> difficult, especially for volunteers to use *effectively*. Where are the
>> small scale, maybe limited vocab, volunteer-based TEI projects that
>> should be one half of the evangelism programs of TEI?
> That's an excellent question! Outside mainstream academia and the
> digital library people, I suppose I would point to the work of the
> Gutenberg "distributed proof readers" guys -- who appear to have
> developed their own customization of TEI Lite, and some documentation
> for it, and who definitely fit the profile you describe. See for example
> http://www.blankslate.net/pgxml/ http://gutenberg.hwg.org/
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
([log in to unmask])
Half-Baked Software, Inc.
([log in to unmask])
[log in to unmask]