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 1992

TEI-L November 1992

Subject:

SGML '92, a trip report

From:

"C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

C. M. Sperberg-McQueen

Date:

Mon, 2 Nov 1992 12:59:46 CST

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (416 lines)

                              Trip Report
                    SGML '92:  the quiet revolution
 
   The SGML '92 conference, sponsored as always by the Graphic
Communications Association and held in Danvers, Massachusetts, was
attended by over 275 people, a new high for this conference, and
provided good opportunities for learning about SGML or keeping current
on what is going on in software and SGML use.  Like those of its
predecessors I have been able to attend, it owed a lot to the energy and
intellectual curiosity of its organizer, Yuri Rubinsky, and was one of
the most exciting conferences I have recently attended.
 
   Rubinsky began the conference by passing the year in review,
reporting on a bewildering variety of activities.  HyTime has been
approved as an international standard, the SGML five-year review is in
progress, work continues on the Conformance Testing Initiative and the
development of SGML-aware query languages (on which more below), and the
Document Semantics and Style Specification Language (DSSSL) should come
up for a second ballot in early 1993.  User groups are being founded
left and right, major public initiatives are underway in the aircraft
industry (ATA/AIA 100 -- I don't swear to the total accuracy of all
these acronyms and numbers!), the Commission of the European Community
(TIDE, a project using SGML to handle services to the disabled and other
persons with special needs), the Unix industry (the Davenport group --
Davenport turns out to mean nothing at all, it's just a name they liked
-- has created a Standard Open Formal Architecture for Browsing
Electronic Documents [SOFABED]), the (legal) drug industry, and
elsewhere.  And of course SGML continues to penetrate the wysiwyg
word-processor market.
 
   By the time the Year in Review was finished, the conference was ten
or fifteen minutes behind schedule, which persisted as a chronic
condition, more to the amusement than to the annoyance of the attendees.
 
   The keynote address was delivered this year by Charles Goldfarb, the
father of SGML, under the title "I Have Seen the Future of SGML and It
Is ..." He began by reminding the meeting that despite its successes,
SGML is not entrenched and has no guarantee of long life:  in the larger
scheme of current data processing and information technology, SGML is
still just a minor blip.  He identified several dangers facing SGML in
these perilous times.  First, the industry continues to view data
representation as a minor matter, and to define new data representations
for new technologies so as to minimize the effort of using those
technologies.  The SGML goal of putting the information owner first, and
of ensuring that one's data will survive one's computer system, is
easily lost in the hustle to design new data representations for new
hardware and software systems, as can be seen in the monthly procession
of new standards for hypertext and multimedia encoding.  SGML apologists
must continually articulate the advantages of SGML and of taking the
non-obvious approach of suiting the representation to the information,
and not to specific hardware devices with a relatively short lifespan.
This is not easy in the face of the technology-specific alternatives.
Let us face it:  it's easier to buy a bunch of Windows applications
which can exchange data in the manner peculiar to Windows than to press
vendors to support exchange using more rational device-independent
systems, which (being device-independent) don't exploit the
peculiarities of Windows.  No viable alternative to SGML exists, but
competition continues to come in two forms:  vendor-promoted
technology-specific interchange formats, and turnkey systems which claim
to handle all the details.  "Let us make all the decisions for you," say
vendors.  He noted in particular the mirage of a standard scripting
language for multimedia systems, and predicted that it would be the PL/I
or the Esperanto of hypermedia:  widely heard of and seldom used.
 
   Moving to his main theme, Goldfarb proclaimed the death of the
"document", which he said may in fact never have been anything more than
a makeshift to enable the use of computer technology.  The future of
SGML lies in its use to link both within and between documents.  The
future of SGML, that is, is HyTime.  He showed medieval pages (from the
Winchester Bible) and discussed the division of labor among scribes,
rubricators, illuminators, and applicators of gold leaf, which
corresponds closely to the division of labor, in presenting a hypermedia
document today, among the text displayer, the graphics presentation
software, and other specialized modules.  Hypertext schemes today differ
from the methods of the past only in incorporating time-based
information.  The data structure must be highly optimized to make
possible real-time presentation of time-based data, but logically
speaking, all that is required are mechanisms for establishing
(specifying) synchrony among events.  SGML provides a firm basis for
representing the abstract information structures needed.
 
   The morning concluded with the first of several poster sessions,
which at SGML conferences most resemble high school science fairs.
Several speakers were stationed around a meeting room, with wall space
for displaying posters on which they had summarized their presentation,
and chairs in front of them for auditors.  The audience had ninety
minutes to move from one to another of the posters, and periodically the
chair of the session wandered through the rooms ringing a set of bells
as a reminder to the auditors to move to other posters, and to the
speakers to begin again from the beginning for the new auditors.  Apart
from occasioning a rash of jokes about pastoral beasts, the bell system
was felt to work very well, and when one of the later poster-session
organizers omitted the bells, there was a general request that they be
restored.
 
   As a presenter in this session, I was unable to get to any of the
interesting posters, and so missed presentations on the creation of
modular DTDs, the use of parameter entities in DTD maintenance, and a
method for using Post-It Notes in DTD design (saves crossing out).  I
spoke about the Pizza Model of DTD construction used by the TEI.
 
   After lunch, Susan Hockey and Don Walker gave an overview of the Text
Encoding Initiative, describing its organization with its attendant
advantages and disadvantages, and focusing on the intellectual problems
posed by the broad, varied user community, the internationality of the
user community and the project, and the use of volunteers in development
of a DTD.
 
   Peter Flynn followed with a description of the CURIA (Cork University
and Royal Irish Academy) project to make machine-readable encodings of
extant Irish texts in all languages, from the sixth to the sixteenth
centuries.  He compared the project to similar corpus projects, outlined
its projected uses in lexicography, literary research, historiography,
hagiography, political science, and folklore.  The texts will be in
SGML, using the ISO 646 Internal Reference Version character set, and
TEI-conformant as far as possible; they will be made available by
anonymous ftp, by telnet to the textbase, through the World-Wide Web, on
CD-ROM, and by interactive messages to a server.  The DTD includes
provision for marking titles, authors, names of places and persons,
events, dates, numbers, occupations, and shifts of language.  He also
described some of the particular problems posed for name marking by
adjectival prefixing and discontinuous cardinal numbers in Irish.  He
capped the presentation by remarking that for obvious reasons the tags
used would all be in Latin, and providing a Latin expansion for the
acronym SGML:  Stantis Generalis Monstrationis Lingua (which means:
Standard Generalized Markup Language).
 
   The most exciting paper of the day, for me, was George Kerscher and
Yuri Rubinsky's paper on "SGML and Braille, Large Print and
Voice-Synthesized Text:  Work of the International Committee for
Accessible Document Design." Kerscher, who for several years ran a
non-profit organization called Computerized Books for the Blind and
Print Disabled, is now Director of Research and Development for
Recording for the Blind, and chair of ICADD.  ICADD is seeking ways of
making current international standards like SGML and ODA bear fruit in
making texts more accessible to print-disabled readers (ten million in
the U.S. alone); the flexibility in output styling provided by well
designed SGML applications means a text can be presented on a
refreshable Braille screen, in a character-based format readable by
standard voice synthesizers, in large print, or in other forms, to suit
the requirements and preferences of the reader.  The structural
information provided by SGML is also extremely useful in making it
possible to produce grade-2 Braille from machine-readable texts, since
Braille symbol usage depends heavily upon context and genre.  To exploit
the promise of SGML, ICADD is defining a set of architectural forms
providing the distinctions most useful in machine generation of Braille,
and encouraging developers of other DTDs to provide mappings from their
elements to the ICADD architectural forms.  Yuri Rubinsky offered to
send full documentation to DTD developers, and received a small flood of
business cards.
 
   The afternoon was filled out by reports from the standards front.
ISO 9070, providing for registration of SGML public text, is moving
toward implementation.  ANSI was originally named to serve as the
registry but wishes to transfer this responsibility to the GCA, which
will be happy to do it.  The GCA Conformance Testing Initiative is
moving forward, but needs money; this led to a spirited discussion of
whether formal conformance testing was a Good Thing (all hands up),
whether it was a Necessary Thing (almost all hands), and who wanted to
try to persuade their management to help pay the quarter to half million
dollars needed to complete a serious test suite (two or three hands).
No one seems to care whether Turbo Pascal is ISO-conformant or not (it
isn't), so I wondered why so many people wanted third-party
certification of SGML processors, but there were a lot of government
suppliers present, and they explained that procurement rules can make
certification attractive or even absolutely necessary.  Anders Berglund
of ISO reported on the Harmonized SGML Math Initiative, which is
effecting a merger of the tags for math in ISO TR 9573-1988, the AAP
DTD, and the Euromath project results.  (I was surprised to learn that
the Euromath project had produced a very typographically oriented tag
set, rather than the logical markup I had expected; the influence of TeX
appeared to be the explanation.)  Further discussions of math markup
were held during the week, but I was unable to attend.  Finally, Sharon
Adler reported on the status of DSSSL, DIS 10179.  DIS version 1 was
passed in August 1991, but the work group elected to revise the standard
further.  Version 2 is expected to go out for ballot in April 1993.
DSSSL works on the SGML document tree, not on the SGML data stream,
using a declarative language to describe processing and a computational
component to enable arithmetic computation of some attribute values.
 
   The evening of the first day was occupied by a Novice's Guide to
HyTime, which I would have liked to attend, but missed.  Reports were
that the handout was very useful, so I got a copy of that.
 
   The later days of the conference, though equally full, left less
distinct impressions on me.  The second day began with a panel organized
by Tommie Usdin, who had asked five SGML professionals to design DTDs
for the New Yorker, giving them however different design goals.  Debbie
LaPeyre designed a DTD to conform as far as possible to the AAP DTD;
Dennis O'Connor designed a DTD to produce the typography of the
magazine; Halley Ahearn to load the material into a retrieval system;
Yuri Rubinsky to capture as much as possible of the semantic content of
the magazine (using what many attendees called "content tagging" to my
initial mystification); and Steve DeRose, who worked with David Durand,
to produce a hypertext-oriented DTD.  The differences and similarities
of the DTDs were extremely interesting, as were the different styles of
presentation and documentation.
 
   The poster session on the second day was devoted to vendor
demonstrations, with demos by vendors of:
 
*   retrieval systems, including Open Text Systems (full-text databases)
*   SGML editors and publishing systems, including CAPS/Agfa (high-end
    publishing), DataLogics (SGML Writer Station), Frame Builder
    (structured wysiwyg word processing), Arbortext (ditto), Interleaf
    (showing Interleaf 5 SGML), and Xerox (showing DocuBuild, which
    "does all the things all the other guys' stuff does")
*   application development tools, including SoftQuad (demoing an
    Application Builder program which enables deep customization of
    Author/Editor and provides an object-oriented version of Scheme as a
    programming language) and Software Exoterica (demoing OmniMark, an
    SGML-aware programming language suitable for data conversion and
    other processing)
*   conversion tools and services, including U.S.Lynx (conversion
    services), Zandar (demoing TagWrite, a data conversion tool), TMS
    Inc. (services), Avalanche Development (demoing Fast-Tag), and Data
    Conversion Laboratory
*   others, including Silicon Graphics (reporting on their experiences
    putting all their online documentation into SGML), George Kerscher
    demonstrating adaptive equipment, and showings of SGML:  The Movie
    (which I once again failed to see)
 
   The third day saw a series of presentations on DTD development by the
Society of Automotive Engineers (working on SAE J2008, a DTD for
automotive service manuals, maintenance advisories, etc.), the Air
Transport Association / Aerospace Industries Association Rev. 100 (ditto
for airplanes), and the Davenport Group (including the Committee for the
Common Man [Page]).  All the speakers were good, but Diane Kennedy's
presentation on ATA/AIA Rev 100 was outstandingly clear and factual.
Notable in the Davenport presentation was their quick adoption of HyTime
architectural forms in the Davenport Advisory Standard for Hypermedia
(DASH).  A poster session devoted exclusively to problems of tables
frustrated many people, who wished it were possible to hear the problems
discussed at greater length than the ten or fifteen minutes possible in
the poster session.  I heard Anders Berglund speaking about the
deficiencies of current table markup standards for producing tables of
moderate complexity as exhibited by several examples of ISO tables, and
Bob Barlow giving a tutorial on the CALS table tags.  Both made me glad
that other people are working on these problems and that the TEI can
simply use their results.
 
   In the afternoon, after a number of case studies, came a long series
of talks on SGML query languages, which provided some of the
intellectual high points of the conference.  Tim Bray of Open Text
Systems gave a clear and cogent presentation on "SGML as Foundation for
a Post-Relational Database Model." He drew disturbing analogies between
current text processing methods and general data processing methods of
the period before consistent database modeling and database use:
 
 
*   files belong to applications
 
*   it's a good application if it produces nice printout
 
*   data sharing only by conversion to different formats
 
*   ad hoc access? forget it
 
*   intolerable application backlog
 
 
He suggested that MIS "saved itself" by consistent use of data modeling
systems, database access / data manipulation languages, indexing, 4GLs
and GUIs, and providing administrative features like concurrency
control, transaction support, audit trails, etc., all crucially linked
with the relational data model.  He proposed further that text
processing save itself the same way:  by using SGML as a data modeling
language, developing SGML-aware data manipulation and access languages,
using indexes for performance, and so on, but emphatically not using the
relational model as basis, since it has such a very poor fit with
textual data.  Given the recent brouhaha on comp.text.sgml over the use
of SGML for data modeling, I was struck by the remark "I believe
strongly that SGML is a very good language and system for modeling text
databases in the real world."  I gather that in Waterloo there is more
variation of opinion than I knew.
 
   Bob Barlow and Fritz Eberle then described an SGML view of databases,
using a somewhat more detailed image of how such a database can be put
together and how it works.  I was startled, though, to hear that
"Editing does not go on inside the document management system; this is a
repository."
 
   Paula Angerstein described the background for a panel on SGML query
languages which took the rest of the day, with time out for dinner.  An
SGML query is, she explained, merely a question about what is in an SGML
document -- a means for identifying interesting pieces of an SGML
document, usually for retrieval and possibly for processing.  The
panelists had each been given a list of thirteen queries to perform on a
sample text, or at least to formulate.  For example,
 
*   locate all paragraphs in the introduction of a section that is in a
    chapter that has no introduction
*   locate all sections with a title that has "is SGML" in it
*   locate all topics referenced by a cross-reference anywhere in the
    report
 
(The full list and the sets of solutions ought to be posted separately,
as an interesting set of queries and answers.)
 
   After Angerstein's presentation, the members of her panel each spoke
briefly about the languages in question.  Francois Chahuneau spoke about
the language SGML/Search, which he has defined for use in a variety of
projects and implemented on top of the PAT indexing engine from Open
Text Systems.  In SGML/Search, the first two sample queries given above
may be expressed:
 
     <para> within.1 <intro> within.1 <section> within.1 <chapter> no
     containing.1 <intro>
 
     <section> containing <title> containing "is SGML"
 
The third query is not expressible in SGML/Search, which has nothing
resembling the required implicit join.  It also does not treat SGML
attributes as distinct entities and thus cannot formulate the queries
involving attribute values.
 
   Paul Grosso described the DSSSL query grammar in general terms:  it
works on the document tree, using relationships between nodes as defined
by a preorder traversal of the tree, with both structure and content
accessible to the query.  Queries can begin from the root node, or from
any set of objects in the document tree, and all queries have the same
syntax:
 
     query(input-object-set, relationship, criteria, subset)
 
A special notation is provided for queries beginning at the root, using
the relationship DESCENDANT.
 
   Steve DeRose described the HyQ query language defined by the recently
adopted HyTime standard.  The basic data object of HyQ is the node-list,
an ordered list of locations.  The nodes in the list may be in one
document or several, on one machine or spread across the world, and may
be at any level from a single character (or conceivably lower, as in a
bit-mapped image of letters on a page) to the world.  HyQ provides a
number of low-level functions accepting node-list arguments and
returning Boolean or node-list values.  Like SGML/Search, HyQ provides
normal set operations of intersection, union, difference, etc. (even
though node-lists are not necessarily free of duplicates, as sets are).
 
   Neil Shapiro concluded the session by describing SFQL (Structured
Full-text Query Language), a query language based on SQL and developed
by the Air Transport Association for client/server applications, which
extends SQL by adding concepts of fields, proximity searching, fuzzy
matching, retrieval control via relevance-ranking etc., and extended
data types.
 
   The evening session, attended mostly by die-hard SGML enthusiasts and
techies, proved a mixed experience.  Shapiro offended many attendees
with a pedantic and occasionally patronizing description of SQL
(repeatedly implying, for example, that standard SQL is incapable of
string searches in text fields, which is not true in the documentation
of standard SQL which I have seen), and the audience responded with
increasingly rude questions and increasingly questionable claims about
the problems inherent in applying the relational model to textual data.
Dubious exaggerations to the effect that the relational model must
inherently lose information present in an SGML-tagged text, and utter
irrelevancies like objections to SFQL on the grounds that its indexing
must take more storage than that of other query languages, led in turn
to acid requests from yet further members of the group (yes, including
me) that the discussion return to substantive issues and attend to
technical, not political, issues.
 
   In the confusion, neither the strengths of the sample SFQL
implementation of the sample data and sample queries, nor the very real
conceptual weaknesses of the relational view of structured text,
received adequate attention.  After the first stormy hour or so, the
discussion did become more substantive and slightly less tense, and
eventually it became clear that all of the languages were in fact
capable of formulating most of the queries.  Francois Chahuneau and Tim
Bray provided models of technical objectivity and equanimity as they
pointed out forthrightly where the formalisms of their query languages
were unable to express some of the desired queries.  (PAT and
SGML/Search do not, for example, handle the query "Locate all sections
with a title that has 'is SGML' in it, allowing the string to be
interrupted by sub-elements".)  The others, being unconstrained by
existing implementations, were able to demonstrate syntax that allowed
the formulation of the queries, without needing to demonstrate engines
that can handle those formulations; this slight irony did not pass
unobserved by the audience, though no one ventured to point it out
publicly.
 
   The final morning was devoted to a series of talks on product
creation, including what were reported to be very good talks by John
McFadden on the creation of MicroSoft Cinemania (an SGML-encoded
hypertext movie encyclopedia) and Ken Kershner of Silicon Graphics on
the conversion of paper documentation to a CD-ROM.  (I couldn't attend
these talks, being busy timing my own talk in my room.)
 
   Eric Freese's discussion of data conversion at Mead Data Central
(also praised by those who heard it) led into a final poster session
devoted to problems of data conversion.
 
   The closing keynote address was delivered in the dining room over
dessert and coffee, which gave it an engagingly relaxed atmosphere.  In
it, I attempted to match Charles Goldfarb's account of SGML's future
with my own predictions of the problems that will occupy the SGML
community in the coming years:  the development of a fuller consensus on
what constitutes good style in DTD design, the need for application
portability (not just portability of data), and above all the need for
better understanding of the semantics of SGML documents and their
processing.  In attempting to come closer to useful semantic
specifications of SGML DTDs and application processes, six topics should
be explored:  specialized DTDs for DTD documentation, synonymic
relationships among tags (e.g.  "<bold> is synonymous with <hilited
rendition = 'bold'>"), class relationships among element types, the
operations allowed and forbidden to act upon given element types,
axiomatic semantics, and reduction semantics.  The looks on the
audience's faces ranged from beaming smiles to interested attention to
slightly apprehensive puzzlement (especially during the discussion of
first-order predicate calculus).
 
   At the conclusion of the conference, the audience gave Yuri Rubinsky,
the organizer, a loud and well deserved ovation.
 
-C. M. 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

September 2019
August 2019
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