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  November 1991

TEI-L November 1991

Subject:

Norway Mtg Report

From:

"Raymond G. Harder" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Raymond G. Harder

Date:

Sun, 24 Nov 1991 10:10:40 PST

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (344 lines)

TEI Norway Meeting: the issues
 
As recently announced, a number of outstanding unresolved issues
were presented for discussion at the TEI's recent Norwegian
meeting.  This posting outlines the seven task groups set up at
that meeting, the technical questions they were asked to resolve
and the preliminary answers they presented.  More detailed
summaries will follow from the task groups in due course.
 
 
1.   CHARACTER SET ISSUES
     (Harry Gaylord, Syun Tutiya, Steven Derose)
 
Q.   In general, how should ambiguous glyphs (for example full
     stop) and synonymous glyphs (for example tilde and logical
     `not' in symbolic logic) be encoded, particularly with
     respect to phonetic transcription?
A.   In phonetic transcriptions, do not use the alternative
     encodings proposed in the new IPA; this avoids the problem
     of synonymous glyphs.  Entity names should reflect the sound
     being encoded, not the shape of the IPA or non-IPA glyph
     used.
 
Q.   How are suprasegmental features (e.g. intonation) to be
     handled?
A.   Use the IPA suprasegmentals; other notations are not yet
     ripe for standardization.  In case of need, declare your own
     set of entity names.
 
Q.   Three main writing systems are used in Japan: can a TEI
     Writing System Declaration handle all of them?
A.   A method has been defined which will extend the current
     draft to make this possible.
 
Q.   Should the WSD be modified to accommodate `stateful'
     charsets (e.g. those with locking shifts like ISO 2022, or
     transliteration schemes such as TLG-Beta)?
A.   No need is currently seen for this:  the existing draft can
     already handle TLG-beta and use of ISO 10646 will obviate
     any need for shift-in, shift-out control codes.  Work will
     continue in this area.
 
Q.   What naming conventions should be followed for locally
     defined entities to avoid name-clashes?  What sources of
     entity names are there?
A.   Priority should be given to public lists, (existing lists
     will be referred to in P2).  A new component of the WSD
     should be `ucscode' i.e. character position in ISO 10646.
     Naming conventions for privately defined entity lists are to
     be defined.
 
Q.   Should the TEI recommend or require a specific order for
     diacritics, and if so, what?
A.   Follow the rules in ISO 10646 -- begining to end, top to
     bottom.
 
 
2. NAMES, DATES AND MEASURES
     (Dan Greenstein, Jacqueline Hamesse, Gary Simons)
 
Q.   The group was charged to explore the feasibility of using
     the feature structure mechanism as defined in TEI P1 chapter
     6 to mark up the internal structure of names, dates and
     measurements, with a view to providing a detailed example
     for inclusion in the P2 Casebook.  The example should
     demonstrate how alternate or ambiguous data can be handled,
     and if possible include a Feature System Declaration.
 
A.   A written draft will be circulated later. Particular points
     noted at the meeting were:
     -    the notation made the unit/level notation already
          provided in P1 redundant
     -    the names `record', `field', `datadict' were proposed
          as alternatives for `f.struct' , `feature', `FSD'
          respectively but not generally agreed, as their use
          implied a greater degree of convergence between the TEI
          concepts and those of existing database systems than
          warranted by experience to date.
     -    for historians, the ability to specify particular
          analytical features independently of textual features,
          with no need to extend the DTD, was regarded as a
          breakthrough of major significance.
     -    it was noted that the same method might be extended to
          handle metaphor, text criticism  and any other
          interpretive material.
     -    it was agreed that the existing tags `f.s.and',
          `f.s.or', etc. should be renamed simply `and', `or',
          etc.  The need for sequencing of features within a
          structure was noted, but no decision taken concerning
          applicability of the existing tags `f.set' and
          `f.list'.
     -    further technical work identified as necessary for
          compatibility with database notions included handling
          of record keys, access permissions, and
          interoperability with X.500.
 
3. BASIC TEXT STRUCTURES
     (Elli Mylonas, David Robey, David Barnard)
 
Q.   Should the current distinction between generic list and
     glossary list be retained?
A.   No.  The list element should be redefined to contain an
     optional head element, followed by a series of item
     elements, each of which might be preceded by an optional
     label element, thus
 
          <!element list - - (head?, (label?, item)+) >
          <!attlist list
                    type     (ordered | simple
                             | gloss | bulleted...)  simple >
 
Q.   What support should be provided for loosely defined lists
     and floating enumerators?
A.   An empty tag might be used to specify the start of a loosely
     structured list, with an attribute to point at its end.
     Enumerators should also be allowed to float in free text.
     The `enum' element itself might also have an attribute to
     point to the end of the thing enumerated.
 
Q.   Should there be some additional categorization or structure
     within notes, and if so, what are its components?
A.   A general-purpose `span' element was proposed, with one
     attribute (`end') pointing to an anchor point, another
     (`resp') to indicate who is responsible for it, and another
     (`type') used to categorize it.  Sample values for the
     latter were imagery, character, voice, theme, allusion,
     style, register, topic, discourse structure, rhetorical
     form.
 
Q.   What mechanism should be used to represent embedded texts
     e.g. a poem quoted within prose or the dramatic scene in
     Moby Dick?
A.   An element `embedded.text' was proposed as an inclusion on
     all `div' type elements. Its content model should be the
     same as that for text. In addition to the `nested vanilla
     div' already agreed at the meeting, it should be possible to
     define specifically named textual divisions for prose, verse
     or drama. The following example DTD fragment was proposed:
 
<entity % body     "(div | ddiv | vdiv)+" >
<!element text - - (front?, body, back?) >
<!element body - - (%body;) >
<!element div  - O ((p | list ...)*, (div*))    +(embedded.text)>
<!element ddiv - O (ddiv+ | (sp | stage |...)+) +(embedded.text)>
<!element vdiv - O (vdiv+ | (v | l | ...)+)     +(embedded.text)>
<!element embedded.text - - (front?, %body;, back?)>
 
     This comparatively restrictive content model precludes
     shifts from verse to prose within a text (even at div
     boundaries) except by means of embedded texts.
 
     [Note:  An earlier draft of the above model which does allow
     shifts from verse to prose to drama at any div boundary
     follows for illustrative purposes:
 
<!entity % divs 'pdiv | ddiv | vdiv' >
<!element pdiv - O (head?, %p.seq;, (%divs;)* ) >
<!element vdiv - O (head?, (stanza* | l*), (%divs;)* ) >
<!element ddiv - O (head?, (sp | stage | ...)*, (%divs;)*) >
 
     (eds).]
 
4  INHERITANCE, GROUPING AND REGULARIZATION
     (Nicoletta Calzolari, Bob Ingria, Peter Robinson, David
     Barnard)
 
Q.   Which of the tags currently proposed for electronic
     dictionaries are also appropriate for electronic lexica?
A.   The workgroup (AI6) will propose a unified set of names.
 
Q.   Specify unambiguous rules for the semantics of inheritance
     within the `grp' tag:  when is it over-riding and when
     additive?
A.   Inheritance is defined within the `grp' element only.  [This
     is a change from the circulated proposal in which
     inheritance applies within both `grp' and `form' elements
     (eds).]  When a `grp' element is nested within an enclosing
     `grp' element, any values not supplied for a given leaf tag
     at the lower level are understood to be inherited from any
     corresponding tag at some higher level.  If a given leaf
     element is specified at both levels, the value supplied at
     the lower level overrides that at the higher.  Values are
     overridden only for identical leaf tags; any intervening
     non-terminal elements are ignored.  (Thus a `blort' tag
     within a `gram' element at the lower level overrides a
     `blort' tag within a `form' or `pron' element at the higher
     level.)
 
     [Note:  this amounts to an attempt to distinguish cleanly
     between the use of contained elements to record
     characteristics of their parent and the use of contained
     elements to indicate subparts of a parent which can inherit
     its characteristics:  the `grp' tag here has only the latter
     function, and all other non-terminals have only the former.
     (eds)]
 
Q.   Can the inheritance mechanism be generalized for use in text
     criticism?
A.   Yes in principle, but this is not yet recommended.
 
Q.   Can the method proposed in TR2 for handling regularization
     be applied to headword abbreviation etc in dictionaries?
A.   Yes. For example
 
         <orth expan='francoise'>-oise</orth>
 
Q.   Are all the tags proposed for TR2 (regularization,
     rdg.group, app. etc) really needed?
A.   rdg.group renamed to group; witness.list might be handled as
     a feature structure, but no specific recommendations are yet
     available.
 
5. SITUATIONAL PARAMETERS
     (Doug Biber, Tom Corns, Stig Johansson, Geoff Sampson)
 
Q.   Propose a single list of parameters that can be placed in
     the characteristics.desc section of the TEI header to
     document both spoken and written corpus texts
A.   The following list was proposed:
     -    constitution (single, composite, or fragmentary)
     -    language (principal, others ..., note)
     -    mode (spoken, written, written-to-be-spoken, spoken-to-
          be-written, mixed)
     -    channel (type = book, periodical, newspaper,
          handwritten, typescript ...)
     -    interaction (type = none, partial, complete)
     -    addressor (number = 1, plural, corporate)
     -    addressee (number = 1, plural, bounded, unbounded)
     -    actual circulation (number = nnn)
     -    list of participants and participant.group (structured
          as in AI2 W1 with minor changes).  Participant
          characteristics are included with demographic and
          situational information.  (N.B. situational information
          may be different for different participants.)
     -    setting (as in AI2) location time duration, ...
     -    preparedness (as in TR6) edited, revised, from notes,
          online
     -    relation to other texts (was:  originality) orig, rev,
          adaptation, plagiarism, ...
     -    factuality (as in TR6) fiction, non, mixed,
          inapplicable
     -    primary purpose (weight each purpose as strong,
          indeterminate, weak, or inapplicable):  persuasion=
          self-expression= informativeness= entertain/edify=
     -    primary domain (as in TR6) (domestic ... from tr6)
     -    topic (open)
     -    The `perceived value' proposal from TR6 was dropped.
     -    The tag `texttype.decl' should be used to define genre
          (eg as synchronic text type, history of text
          perception); its contents include any of these
          situational parameters as well as prose.
     -    Most of the above tags are expressed by empty tags,
          with value-bearing attributes; any additional
          qualification can be supplied by an immediately
          following note tag.
 
Q.   At which point or points in the text should the situational
     parameters be specified?
A.   Values applying to a corpus are in the corpus header within
     its `characteristics.desc'; values defining an individual
     text type are in `texttype.decl'; and values applying to
     individual text are in `characteristics.desc' of the
     individual text header.
 
6.  UNCERTAINTY
     (Robin Cover, Allen Renear, Paul Fortier, Claus Huitfeldt)
 
Q.   Propose a general method for dealing with uncertainty in
     principled way.  Is it possible exhaustively to specify
     kinds of uncertainty?  How should uncertainty about what is
     seen be distinguished from uncertainty as to its
     interpretation?
 
A.   A tentative strategy was proposed.  Questions of legibility
     or audibility are distinguished from other kinds of
     uncertainty; inaudible and illegible passages should bear
     the same tag.  (Paradoxically, illegibility is almost the
     only kind of textual feature about which it is not possible
     to be uncertain.)  [Note: the word `indistinct' was later
     proposed as a suitable name for this tag (eds).]
 
     For other kinds of uncertainty, there seemed to be a need to
     specify three things: what is uncertain, what kind of
     uncertainty is involved, and degree of uncertainty.
     Possible values for `what' might include `GI', indicating
     uncertainty as to whether or not the tag in question applies
     to this passage, `startloc' or `endloc', indicating
     uncertainty as to whether its start or end has been
     correctly located, or the name of any attribute, indicating
     uncertainty as to the correct value for that attribute.
     Values of `degree' might be yes or no, a range from 1 to 9,
     or traditional characterizations such as `doubtful',
     `circa', etc.
 
     This strategy might be implemented in a number of different
     ways: as a single three-valued global attribute or a set of
     three global attributes; as a floating empty tag bearing
     three attributes to specify the uncertainty and a fourth to
     specify (by IDREF) the element instance in question; as a
     pointer to a feature structure or as a group of empty tags.
 
     Additional requirements noted by the meeting were ways of
     representing the reason or cause of the uncertainty, and
     ways of distinguishing accuracy or precision for numerical
     quantities from uncertainty as to their values.
 
7. CHOICE OF ALIGNMENT MECHANISMS
     (Terry Langendoen, Steve DeRose, Winfried Lenders)
 
Q.   Could the current inventory of alignment mechanisms (al.map,
     xref, timeline, extensions, treepointer, fsptr ...) be
     reduced? What guidance should be given as to the choice of
     mechanism?
A.   The xref tag should be used for all pointer mechanisms;
     other tags with pointer functions (e.g. al.ptr, f.ptr, etc.)
     should be merged with it.  Additional attributes would be
     needed for some applications.  The timeline and alignment
     map mechanisms were mirror images which it should be
     possible to unify.
 
Q.   For word by word tagging should the currently proposed
     entity references be expanded as xref pointers to feature
     structures or as full feature structures?
A.   The pointer expansion was preferable.
 
Q.   Propose a set of tags (to go in refs.decl in header) which
     specify how canonical references are to be specified and
     located in text.
A.   A detailed syntax, based on tree navigation, was defined.
 
8. CONCLUSION
 
Apologies are due to any of the participants who feel that our
hastily produced summary misrepresents them.  TEI-L is the
appropriate locus for corrections.  We look forward to reading
more detailed proposals on each of the above areas... likely to
appear on TEI-L over the coming days as each of the participants
was urged to write up their thoughts, particularly in the new
areas discussed above, and circulate them by that means as soon
as possible.
 
Lou Burnard
Michael Sperberg-McQueen

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

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