Rather than a work group, I think a SIG would be exactly the right
mechanism for doing this. Bravo for having suggested it -- and good luck!
Now, who else wants to stand up and be counted? (I'm looking at some
German people with broomsticks ....)
I agree with you that, although the existing Libraries SIG obviously has
a great deal of relevant expertise to contribute, and I'm sure some of
its members would wish to contribute to this effort, its primary area of
activity is somewhat different.
The mechanism for setting up SIGs is documented on the website at
http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/SIG/rules.xml though I'm not sure how
up to date this page is....
Grace Wiersma wrote:
> Hi Lou (and others interested),
> Would it be possible to establish a working group on this topic, to take the issue out of the realm of belief and into a more empirical realm? I don't mean to be jocular--this is an issue that's come up before and about which I've corresponded with Martin Holmes in the past. We discussed pulling together available mappings between MARC and other metadata standards, then creating a "microformat" (and related GUI tool) for getting the right stuff into the TEI Header without each project having to re-invent the wheel. The problem so far (at least for me) has been to find time to work on it. With a more public working group/discussion devoted to it, perhaps there'd be enough structure and encouragement for those interested to get work done and report on it. I see from this discussion the beginnings of such a group. Or, perhaps such a group already exists and we haven't heard from them yet?
> My sense is that the TEI in Libraries SIG already has enough on its plate, and that after all its focus is upon issues of metadata automation, since the mainstream work of libraries nowadays is not hand-tailored metadata for individual texts, but getting the available standards to converge and work to scale, within the context of the large automated projects for which libraries are typically responsible.
> Grace Wiersma
> Cataloging & Metadata Services
> MIT Libraries
> [log in to unmask]
> (617) 253-0643
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lou Burnard
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 10:52 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: biblFull or biblStruct
> Well I haven't checked, but my belief is that there are examples of how
> to do most of these (using biblStruct) in the current guidelines.
> Discussion on this thread seems to have been led astray by the
> assumption that biblFull could do everything biblStruct does. Which it
> That's not to say that it's impossible to come up with complex
> situations which the Guidelines don't cater for, and which would also
> probably defeat most other existing cataloguing systems, but I don't
> think that warrants the suggestion that the Guidelines are incapable of
> supporting library standard bibliographic descriptions, for which there
> is ample existence proof to the contrary.