LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for TEI-L Archives


TEI-L Archives

TEI-L Archives


TEI-L@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEI-L Home

TEI-L Home

TEI-L  July 1991

TEI-L July 1991

Subject:

Report on first TEI European workshop

From:

Donald A Spaeth <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Donald A Spaeth <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 13 Jul 91 15:50:22 BST

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (202 lines)

LIVING WITH THE GUIDELINES
The first TEI European Workshop
Oxford University Computing Service
1-2 July 1991
 
The first European workshop of the Text Encoding Initiative
(TEI) was held in Oxford on 1-2 July 1991.  The TEI is an
international effort to develop and disseminate guidelines for
encoding and exchanging machine-readable texts.  The first
phase of the TEI was completed by the publication of the
Guidelines for the Encoding and Interchange of Machine-
Readable Texts (1990), and several Working Committees, Working
Groups and Affiliated Projects are now expanding and refining
these guidelines.
 
The two-day workshop was attended by fifty people from
fourteen countries, of whom the largest number were from
Britain.  Not surprisingly, linguistics and language studies
were the best-represented subject areas, but by no means the
only ones.  The workshop was taught by the TEI Co-Editors, Lou
Burnard and Michael Sperberg-McQueen, and by Elaine Brennan
(Brown), Harry Gaylord (Groningen) and Terry Langendoen
(Arizona).  The speakers had obviously worked very hard, and
the two days went without hitch.
 
The workshop included a neatly-balanced mixture of group
discussions, lectures on technical issues and software
demonstrations and practicals.  It opened with a warm-up
session, Why Tag Texts.  The group looked at the workshop's
core text, portions from Mary Robinson's 'Thoughts on the
Condition of Women' (1799), both in its original printed
format and as keyed in by the Brown Women's Writers Project
and marked up by Michael Sperberg-McQueen.  The task was to
identify textual elements which should be marked up, and this
raised a number of issues.  There was some disagreement
between those who believed every descriptive variation should
be encoded, including the breadth of vertical lines and
whether left or right quotes were used, and those who did not.
Joy Jenkyns (Oxford) pointed out that typography could hold
clues to interpretation, for example, the similarity between a
long 's' and an 'f' might point to a sight-rhyme between
'wise' and 'wife'.  Jeremy Clear (OUP), tongue firmly in
cheek, deployed the 'reductio ad absurdum' argument that we
should mark-up an upper-case 'I' as 'a vertical line with two
serifs'.  (In the closing session on Tuesday, John Dawson
(Cambridge) suggested that only elements which were to be
processed by computer needed tagging, and there was general
agreement that it would be desirable to accompany documents
with digital images of the original).
 
We returned to group discussion of tagging after lunch, in a
session entitled Textual Anarchy:  The Challenge for the TEI.
Lou Burnard had chosen examples of texts from those held in
the Oxford Text Archive and had attempted to replace the
tagging scheme used in the original with TEI tags; the
examples came from the Paston Letters, a blues lyric and
Beowulf.  Our task was to match the features tagged in the two
versions; extra points were awarded for observing elements
which had been marked up incorrectly or which the TEI could
not mark up  The session did an excellent job of pointing out
why the TEI is necessary, since each example used its own
idiosyncratic scheme, although everyone was too embarrassed
too admit to having scored the most points!
 
The TEI technical presentations included reviews of basic SGML
and TEI concepts and an exposition of advanced TEI features.
The reviews were overly brief and schematic, containing
nothing that was new for readers of Draft 1 of the TEI
Guidelines (TEI P1) while offering insufficient guidance for
novices; the mixed experience of the audience made it
difficult to judge the right level for these sessions.  Terry
Langendoen's paper on advanced features explored techniques
for encoding linguistic feature structures and for
abbreviating verbose coding by defining thousands of entities.
I found particularly useful the analogy he drew between
feature structures and relational database tables, since as an
historian I need techniques for marking up record structures
in text, and the techniques he was describing (and still
developing) clearly had applications outside the field of
linguistics.
 
The practical sessions answered the common complaint that
there is little software for preparing and analysing TEI-
conformant texts.  Lou Burnard briefly outlined the software
choices and the issues to be considered in choosing software,
distinguishing between Parsers, Editors, Filters, Formatters
and Retrieval Systems.  Two sessions, Uses for Tagged Texts
and a TEI Users' Forum, demonstrated examples of several of
these types of software.  Filters or transducers provide a
means of converting other systems of tags into SGML or vice
versa.  Examples included a Nota Bene program which converted
SGML tags into NB formatting; KEDIT macros converting SGML
tags into COCOA tags for analysis with micro-OCP; and the B-
Transducer.  Filters are useful for converting already-tagged
text into TEI-conformant text  but for new texts SGML editors
have the advantage of validating texts automatically as they
are tagged.  Two hands-on practicals gave us the opportunity
to try out two editor/parsers, Mark-It (DOS) and Author Editor
(Macintosh), and we saw how the latter enabled SGML tags to be
used as stylesheets to produced formatted.output.  On the
retrieval side, we saw a simple SPITBOL program produce a list
of all proper names in the core Robinson text as well as a
prototype of the Oxford Textual Analysis System under
development by OUP.  Also on show were:  Collate, a program
for collating variant versions of manuscripts, which now takes
TEI-tagged text as input or output; and RUTH, an editor which
allows the user to tag texts using a KWIC concordance.  The
Users' Forum included reports on the forthcoming Chadwyck-
Healy CD-ROM database of English poetry, to be distributed
with TEI-markup; and the Wittgenstein Archives, who are
developing their own distinctly non-TEI markup and analysis
software.
 
The workshop closed with a talk by Michael Sperberg-McQueen on
TEI-conformance and a general discussion on the TEI and the
workshop itself.  Michael Sperberg-McQueen drew a distinction
between the different formats in which textual data might be
held:  at data capture, for a specific application, as stored
on a local computer, and for interchange.  Ideally, text
should be held in a single format which can be understood by
many applications rather than in a different format for each
application.  In a change from the Guidelines, he announced
THAT TEI WOULD IN FUTURE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN TEI-CONFORMANCE
-- RESTRICTED TO SGML BUT ALLOWING ALL LOCAL CHARACTERS -- AND
TEI-interchange format -- using the subset of ASCII defined in
the Guidelines.  He outlined several desiderata for software,
including minimal tag redundancy, allowing attributes to be
used to differentiate variants of a tag, and selective
display, so that the user can turn off selected tags or
elements for viewing.
 
In the final session, participants expressed concern about the
cost and complexity of marking up text with SGML.  It was
claimed that the costs of data definition, data entry
(including training), and storage, particularly given the
verbosity of SGML, put it beyond the reach of many publishers
and projects, and perhaps all but large government-funded
projects.  In expressing concern about complexity, it was
clear that a number of participants were daunted by the
prospect of wading through the Guidelines and SGML manuals.
Several participants argued that compendia were needed which
identified tags relevant to each subject area, although
Michael Sperberg-McQueen said that it was too early to prepare
these since the TEI was still under development.
 
These anxieties about TEI markup suggest that future workshops
must devote more time to the practical issues of developing
Data Type Definitions (DTDs) and marking up texts from
participants' own research.  One person observed that we had
not examined Data Type Definitions (DTDs), although we had
been told that that they were a crucial part of a TEI-
conformant text, not least because they document the tags
used.  In fact, the booklet 'An Introduction to TEI Tagging'
which was given to all those attending provides a suitably
gentle introduction, as well as a sample DTD used to mark up
the Robinson core text.  Even this DTD, described as 'a
simplified TEI document type description', is eight pages long
and includes 85 element tags.  Perhaps future workshops should
use this more explicitly as a workbook in a practical session
replacing one or more of the software sessions.  Training of
this sort is crucial if TEI recommendations are to be follow
widely.
 
Running a workshop for an audience mixed both in discipline
and experience is difficult.  The use of Robinson as a core
text was an effective device, but there was always the risk
(particularly in the opening session) that people would think
that this laid down what <emph> must </emph> be marked up for
TEI-conformance.  On the contrary, each scholar will only mark
up the elements which he or she wishes to study.  This is why
IT IS IMPORTANT FOR WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS TO BE ABLE
TO TAG THEIR OWN TEXTS UNDER SUPERVISION.
 
This raises the broader question of how prescriptive the TEI
should be.  While some participants expressed concern that the
TEI was too prescriptive, others pointed out that  users could
develop their own idiosyncratic attributes, once again
creating an obstacle to free interchange of data.  Should the
TEI (with help from subject-specific working parties) develop
increasingly detailed descriptions of document types and tags
(including even subject-specific DTDs) which all scholars will
use?  Or should scholars be left free to develop their own
tags and DTDs based upon their research needs, with SGML-
conformance providing a mechanism for documentation and
therefore easing exchange?  The latter approach is of
particular relevance for subjects relatively new to text-based
analysis, such as history, but TEI compendia and training will
be needed.
 
I found the TEI Workshop both enjoyable and stimulating.  It
is hard to see how much more could have been packed into two
rich days, which included a reception given by the CTI Centre
for Textual Studies and an evening punting on the River
Cherwell!  I was pleased to see that the SGML and TEI
communities are so healthy, and hope that this will be only
the first of many TEI workshops in Europe.
 
Donald Spaeth
University of Glasgow
TEI History Working Group
13 July 1991

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
August 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
September 1991
August 1991
July 1991
June 1991
May 1991
April 1991
March 1991
February 1991
January 1991
December 1990
November 1990
October 1990
September 1990
August 1990
July 1990
June 1990
April 1990
March 1990
February 1990
January 1990

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager