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 1994

TEI-L November 1994

Subject:

SGML '94 Trip Report

From:

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

Reply-To:

C. M. Sperberg-McQueen

Date:

Fri, 18 Nov 1994 18:21:14 CST

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (395 lines)

                              Trip Report
 
                SGML '94 and SGML/Open Technical Meeting
 
             (Tyson's Corner, Virginia, 7-11 November 1994)
 
 
                         C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
 
                      November 18, 1994 (17:36:06)
 
 
   SGML '94 is the fifteenth or so in the series of annual SGML confer-
ences organized by the Graphic Communications Association (GCA).  The
gathering this year was held in Tyson's Corner, Virginia, just south of
Washington, D.C.  It continued the pattern of the last few years by
growing about 50% from the gathering of the preceding year; about 700
people attended, up from 450 or so last year.  The organizers had been
prepared for some growth, but not quite so much; the hotel staff, to
their credit, worked hard to handle the overflow, and I heard no com-
plaints from the participants.
 
   I always enjoy the GCA's SGML conference, both for the generally sol-
id technical content and for the chance to see old friends.  In some
respects, the latter advantage outweighed the former this year:  with so
many new attendees, it is natural for there to be less hard-core techni-
cal material, disappointing though that may be for the hard-core SGML
techies among us.  (Next year, I am told, the conference will feature a
"geek track" so labeled, which should attract a good selection of hard-
core technical talks.)  This year's conference was not, however, com-
pletely bereft of technical content:  several talks provided as much
solid food for thought as one might ask for.  Herewith a selective view
of the highlights.
 
   As usual, Yuri Rubinsky and Tommie Usdin (chair and co-chair, respec-
tively, of the conference) gave a presentation during the opening ses-
sion, on the SGML Year in Review.  High points I find in my notes are:
that the SGML Conformance test suite developed by the GCA is now avail-
able on the Internet (I didn't get the address); that Lynne Price is
chairing a committee on registration of SGML public identifiers; that
ISO DIS 10179, the Document Style Semantics and Specification Language
(DSSSL) is now being balloted for adoption as an international standard,
with a meeting set for February 1995 to resolve comments.  ISO 13673, on
SGML conformance testing, has been approved, and the National Institute
for Science and Technology (NIST) is setting up a conformance testing
project.  (There was much muttering and gnashing of teeth over the way
NIST has handled this effort so far:  interested parties were not noti-
fied of the request for bids, and not everyone has total faith in NIST's
ability to handle the task without more consultation with the SGML com-
munity than they appear to be interested in undertaking.)  TEI P3 was
published.  (I'd like to report that at this point, the proceedings were
halted for a ten-minute spontaneous demonstration of the sort familiar
from American political conventions, where the mention of a candidate's
name sends the hall into a frenzy of celebration.  I'd like to, that is,
but on the whole, the audience took the announcement that TEI P3 is
done with a certain phlegmatic equanimity.)
 
   Other projects and initiatives also reached milestones this year:
the DocBook DTD is out in release 2.2, the Pinnacles DTD for semiconduc-
tor component data sheets is out in release 1.1, and the Air Transport
Association's DTD has been adopted and adapted for internal use by Luf-
thansa and United Airlines.  The news industry has formulated a so-
called "Universal Text Format", the acronym for which will sow lots of
confusion for people interested in both SGML and character sets, since
UTF is the acronym for a common compression scheme for the 32-bit char-
acter set ISO 10646.  The work of the International Committee for Acces-
sible Document Design (ICADD) has been exended, but my notes become
illegible here, so I can't tell you exactly how.
 
   The World Wide Web has become the best-known SGML application in the
world, though by no means the largest in terms of volume of data.  (Sev-
eral vendors said in public and private that they had at least six or
eight clients with more data each than all of the WWW put together.)
And the Web has gone commercial with a vengeance, the freely available
Mosaic developed at NCSA (the National Center for Supercomputing Appli-
cations, which also supplied this year's keynote speaker) now having
several commercial competitors.  The most important announcement in this
connection was, I personally believe, the one Yuri did not make, presum-
ably to avoid apparent conflict of interest.  Namely, that SoftQuad has
agreed to supply an SGML browser called Panorama, to be bundled in with
copies of NCSA Mosaic, which can handle arbitrary SGML DTDs.  (N.B. by
ARBITRARY DTDs I do not mean DTDs which themselves are capricious and
irrational, but DTDs chosen by the user's free will, according to the
user's own lights.)
 
   In other news of interest, Microsoft has now announced its SGML prod-
uct which ties in, naturally, to MS Word.  Avalanche also displayed bro-
chures for several packages intended to assist users in exploiting the
Microsoft materials.  And the conference was filled with the whispers of
organizations seeking to hire new people.
 
   Joseph Hardin of NCSA gave the keynote address, which described NCSA
and explained why a supercomputing center has paid so much attention to
issues which, on first glance, are not related to supercomputing, such
as  visualization, data handling and data formats, software for long-
distance collaboration, and information systems such as the World Wide
Web.  All of these are supported at NCSA because NCSA sees its mission
as supporting what Hardin called the "computational science revolution",
and these seem to be useful in that context.  Hardin stressed the impor-
tance of standards:  URLs and URNs, HTML, HTTP, ANSI Z39.50 (a network-
based protocol for information retrieval), and the Common Client Inter-
face (CCI, recently announced by NCSA:  this protocol allows external
viewers like Panorama to ask the WWW client software which launched them
to perform WWW services, such as fetching items from the net, on their
behalf).
 
   Charles Goldfarb, newly independent after years at IBM, reviewed the
current status of Project YAO, a cooperative project of partners in Chi-
na, California, and Norway to write an SGML parser to make publicly
available in source form.  The parser will include an application pro-
gramming interface (API) for access to low-level parser events (such as
recognition of a start-tag, recognition of an end-tag, etc.), in a pat-
tern familiar from other parser interfaces.  Procedures for saving and
restoring the parse state will ultimately be provided (i.e. they are not
yet available), which can be used to implement incremental parsing.
Multiple concurrent parsing contexts are also supported, Goldfarb said,
though in answer to a question he explained that he did not mean the
parser supported, or would support, CONCUR.  The multiple contexts will
allow parsing with different SGML declarations, different DTDs and link
process definitions, and can thus be used to check the conformance of a
document instance to the architectural forms.
 
   A variable-persistence cache will be provided, to allow rapid access
to parsed fragments; the cache will use a proprietary format.
 
   The low-level interface will be complemented by a high-level inter-
face to the "information objects" of the document in terms of its entity
and element structure.  This interface will also support references to
objects by means of HyTime location addressing.
 
   The Portable Object-oriented Entity Manager (POEM) is a separate
software project and may (if I understand things right) be incorporated
in other parsers, not just in the YAO parser.  POEM will provide a com-
plete buffer separating the entity structure of SGML from the file
structure of the operating system, allowing multiple entities to be
stored in a single file, and vice versa.
 
   Design documents and some but not all of the code are available for
review from ftp://ftp.ifi.uio.no/pub/SGML/YAO.
 
   The evening sessions at GCA SGML conferences have in recent years
been dovtd to some thorny technical issue or other, leading to memorable
arguments over query languages, SGML transformation tools, and so on.
This year, the sessions were on tables and, ... and, ... well, there was
a second one, but I had to look it up in my program to remember that the
topic was visual display of structural information.  I confess that
instead of attending either of these, I went to dinner, with a group of
people who turned out all to be interested in style sheets, especially
for network distribution of SGML documents.  We promptly turned our-
selves into an informal cabal and plotted a strategy for addressing the
style sheet issue; there turned out to be a strong consensus among those
present that a standard style sheet for net-based browsers was both fea-
sible and desirable, that it can and should be formulated as a subset of
DSSSL, and that SGML Open should consider organizing, or at least spon-
soring, the technical work, and adopting the result.  Later reports said
that the tables session was very interesting, but achieved little con-
sensus.  The session on graphic display of structure seems to have
focused, not surprisingly, on methods of displaying trees onscreen.
 
   Later in the week, the cabal produced results, in the form of a
very preliminary proposal for a subset of DSSSL for use in network
browsers; SGML Open discussed this at some length at the end of the
week, and work continues under the leadership of Steve Pepper, who
should be contacted (at [log in to unmask]) for further information.
 
   On the second day of the conference, SGML Open had arranged an all-
day series of talks reviewing all the various components of an SGML sys-
tem.  The morning started with an able survey of DTD development and
other utilities by Debbie Lapeyre, and continued with equally useful
surveys of parsers and SGML transformers (Pam Gennusa), SGML editors
(Paul Grosso), tools for electronic delivery (Tim Bray), and programs
for layout and composition (Mark Walters).  Into this series the organ-
izers had also slipped a talk by myself, on SGML database and document
management systems.  I won't speak for my own talk, but the others in
the series were extremely informative, and had far too much content to
be paraphrased successfully here.  There is time and space only to
report Tim Bray's useful distinction between browsers for "live" (chang-
ing) data and browsers for "dead" (static) data, the latter being nota-
ble for their "Kill, Cook, Freeze" processing model.  He also distin-
guished between structure-oriented viewers (mostly SGML-aware) and
page-oriented viewers (mostly not SGML-aware).  Structure viewing is
better, but page viewing is cheaper.  Structure viewing is the technolo-
gy of the future; page viewing is that of the past.
 
   N.B.  Tim's talk was, as always, very good, but I should note that if
I quote him at some length and the others not at all, it is not because
the other talks were less informative, but because he had better sound
bites.  If plans are successful, all the presentations should appear in
written form in a book, which will, it is hoped, be useful for potential
adopters of SGML.
 
   The evening session on the second day was devoted to SGML and the
Internet, which turned out (unsurprisingly) to mean SGML and the World
Wide Web.  I sat near a number of participants in the Pinnacles group,
who turned out to share my strong feelings that the long-term future of
the World Wide Web depends upon its abandoning the current idea of sup-
porting only a single SGML DTD (namely HTML) and providing support for
any DTD the information distributor chooses.  The presentations were
aimed at non-technical listeners, and in particular Eric Severson of
Avalanche must be singled out as giving the most persuasive non-
technical discussion of network publishing I have ever heard, explaining
in business terms why WWW, and in particular HTML, is best treated as a
publishing medium and emphatically not as a format suitable for document
creation or maintenance.  As the evening wore on, however, with the
speakers failing ever more emphatically to mention the shortcomings of
HTML, the inevitable inadequacy of any single-DTD strategy for the net,
or any of the technical issues which must be addressed, the Pinnacles
group and I turned into a slightly noisy heckling section.  Fortunately,
before too long the meeting was opened up to comment, and we were able
to applaud vigorously those who, like John Bosak, Terry Allen, and Mur-
ray Maloney, expounded viewpoints we found more rational; this gave us a
much needed outlet; without it, I am afraid we might have begun misbe-
having really badly. As it was, I fear the fellow who spoke about HTML
may still bear some psychological scars; he was clearly prepared for a
non-technical audience, not one of whom 80% reported experience author-
ing documents in HTML using ASCII editors.  He did the best one could
expect under the circumstances.
 
   The next morning was brightened by Dave Sklar's talk about transduc-
ing documents into SGML from other formats (ALCHEMY FOR THE MASSES).
With his usual mixture of sound technical information and manic humor,
Sklar observed that conversion of legacy data has moved beyond the ini-
tial state of technology, in which the user's choice is either to hire a
wizard, or become a wizard -- "enable thyself, or enable thy wallet", to
a more mature state in which the user has a third choice, namely to use
standard Do-It-Yourself-style toolkits, without having to become a wiz-
ard first.  These Do It Yourself tools generally work from the visual
appearance of the document, allow more or less simple mappings from
appearance to SGML tags, and provide a convenient user interface for
specifying the mappings.  They work in a surprising number of cases, but
-- surprise!  -- not in all.
 
   The afternoon and evening of the third day was devoted to a vendor
exhibit session, on which I need not comment here, beyond observing that
there were a lot of vendors, showing a lot of very good software.  Any-
one who argues, nowadays, that there is any shortage of good SGML soft-
ware, is hallucinating or out of touch.  Editors, browsers, document
management systems, typesetting engines, software libraries, search and
retrieval engines; monolithic systems and open-system frameworks; high-
end and low-end software for high- and low-end hardware; I saw all of
these, and I did not actually visit more than a third of the booths.
There is always room for more software, of course, and there are niches
still to be found and explored.  But existing off the shelf SGML systems
can now do more than ever before.
 
   On the final morning, John McFadden of Exoterica gave a talk on the
SGML SHORTREF feature, in which he attempted valiantly to be provoca-
tive.  Unfortunately, for me at least he succeeded only in being provok-
ing and condescending.  He argued that SHORTREF was widely misunder-
stood, because most SGML users focus on relatively simple applications
where SHORTREF does not show to advantage.  The true strength of
SHORTREF shows, he said, in applications with much higher information
density.  Along the way, in the interests of provocation, he took sever-
al potshots at those who would like to simplify the formal syntax of
SGML by removing what they believe to be unnecessary complications,
bells, and whistles.  (Since I have often argued that the formal syntax
of SGML is unnecessarily complex, my negative reaction to his remarks
may reflect irrational pique over these potshots.  The reader must form
an independent opinion.)
 
   Unfortunately, McFadden never did make clear what he believes the
true strength of SHORTREF really is, or why he claims that without
SHORTREF, applications with high markup density are "impossible". I
asked him what problem he encountered in high-density markup which made
SHORTREF essential, but his only answer was to suggest that if I had to
ask, I probably had never seen data with a really high density of markup
and information.  I respectfully suggested that I had seen such data,
and repeated my question, but he answered only by inviting me to Ottawa,
where he would show me, he said, texts with really dense markup, as much
as one tag per word of content.  I did not take the time to observe that
in the TEI-encoded British National Corpus, every word is tagged with
its part of speech; that in sample encodings of the Dead Sea Scrolls it
is not uncommon for every character to require separate elements record-
ing the certainty of its reading and the percentage of the character
preserved on the papyrus; and that in the first draft of the TEI Guide-
lines, the two-word sentence
 
      Wash sinks.
 
is encoded with a lexical and syntactic analysis which runs to six pag-
es.  (I should note that the sentence is four-way ambiguous -- each sin-
gle analysis therefore runs only to a page and a half.  Possibly McFad-
den regards this as not "really" dense.)  It may be that a judicious use
of SHORTREF could make work with these examples simpler -- but on the
whole, working with an SGML parser and an SGML editor with decent style
sheets already makes work with these examples simple enough for me.  So
I continue to be mystified by McFadden's claim that work with densely
marked up text is "impossible" without SHORTREF.  It's not impossible at
all: we've been doing it for years.  I could not help but wonder whether
his view simply reflected a failure to exploit the capabilities of SGML
editors, in which case it is not SGML, but an insistence on using inade-
quate editors, which is causing the problem.  Unfortunately, by failing
to provide concrete examples and by limiting himself to vague and unin-
formative comments rather than specific analysis, McFadden made his talk
vacuous and lost an opportunity to encourage serious technical discus-
sion of a topic he appears to care about a lot.
 
   Fortunately, two later talks the same morning provided shining exam-
ples of how to encourage technical discussion.  Jean Paoli, of Grif,
spoke about SGML Objects and the issues involved in defining behaviors
for them.  And Makoto Murata, of Fuji Xerox, gave what I thought was the
most substantial technical paper of the conference.  Under the unpre-
possessing title FILE FORMAT FOR DOCUMENTS CONTAINING BOTH LOGICAL
STRUCTURES AND LAYOUT STRUCTURES, Murata described the formal problems
confronting any attempt to record both the logical (or:  a logical) and
the (or: a) physical structure of the same text.  Since these problems
have been a constant looming presence in the TEI, especially in the work
groups for textual criticism, manuscript transcription, and dictionar-
ies, and since the TEI was never able to devise a fully satisfactory
general solution to them, I was particularly interested in his summary.
(In this summary, I will like Murata speak of the logical and the physi-
cal view; the problems, however, also occur when more than one logical
view, or more than one physical view, are to be encoded.)  In brief, the
problems include:
 
*   duplication of data (e.g. in a running head, which appears once in
    the logical view and several times in the physical view)
*   removal of data (e.g. annotations in the logical view which are not
    present in the physical view)
*   addition of data (e.g. page numbers in the physical view, not
    present in the logical view)
*   need for explicit expression of the alignment between elements in
    the two views
*   reordering of data (e.g. migration of footnote or endnote text away
    from its point of attachment to the bottom of the page or to the end
    of the chapter or volume); this Murata calls DISTORTION.  Fine-
    grained alignments of parallel documents in one or more languages
    also exhibit this problem.
 
The optional SGML feature CONCUR was intended to enable the simultaneous
encoding of multiple views of the document (in particular, of both a
logical and a layout view), but CONCUR has only awkward methods for han-
dling duplication, suppression, and addition of data, and no methods at
all, that I know of, for handling duplication and distortion.  The stan-
dard is silent on whether parsers which support CONCUR must support
simultaneous parsing with more than one DTD, so such parsers may or may
not support explicit linkage between nodes in different document trees.
 
   Borrowing concepts from other work on document processing and docu-
ment formatting, Murata defined an algorithmic process for augmenting
the logical and physical trees of the document with specialized node
types, which enable him to handle duplication, addition, suppression,
and distortion without having to store any portion of the text more than
once.  The augmented trees have explicit links expressing the correspon-
dences of their nodes, and each tree can be reconstructed in a straight-
forward way, undoing, as necessary, the effects of addition, duplica-
tion, etc.  In many respects, the specialized node types introduced by
Murata resemble the PTR, LINK, and JOIN elements of the TEI encoding
scheme; I need to study his work further before knowing how far these
TEI element types can be used to exploit his insights in a TEI context.
 
   Murata's work has, I think, critical implications for anyone con-
cerned with document formatting, with systematic encoding of text layout
or physical presentation, with multiple versions of a text (text dis-
placement, Murata's DISTORTION, is one of the hardest problems of text
criticism, not only in electronic form, but also in paper forms), or
with synchronization of multilingual corpora.  I warmly recommend its
close study.
 
   The concluding talk of the conference was Jean Pierre Gaspart's won-
derful injunction to keep PUSHING THE SGML PARADIGM.  Taking as his
starting point the aphorism "When I was seven, I received a 'hammer' and
suddenly everything looked like a 'nail'."  Gaspart observed that in
some approaches, SGML becomes nothing more than a nail for someone
else's hammer:  an export mechanism for relational database management
systems -- which are not intrinsically well suited to the storage and
management of hierarchical data like SGML -- or an alternative notation
for LISP S-expressions -- which Gaspart objected to on the grounds that
S-expressions are trees, while SGML documents are not trees but graphs,
in which containment is just one of many possible relations between
nodes.
 
   Instead of making SGML a nail for some other technological hammer,
Gaspart proposed that full exploitation of the SGML paradigm will
involve making SGML the hammer:  that is, making SGML the central organ-
izing principle of software systems.  He gave several examples of this
type of organization.  In one, an object-oriented system for tracking
court cases and scheduling sessions in a court of appeal is implemented
by distributed programs which act upon SGML-encoded representations of
the case and its status, and interact with each other by sending SGML-
encoded messages.  The central task dispatcher is an SGML parser which
treats incoming messages as a stack of entities to be parsed, and which
fires appropriate subroutines as a side effect of parsing. Other appli-
cations include SGML-based systems for object-oriented data management,
bill processing at the Belgian telecommunications authority, and a
process-flow control system for the Belgian parliament.  He concluded by
suggesting that the occasion of the SGML formal review should be used to
improve the language, and made a few concrete suggestions (including the
preservation of CONCUR and SHORTREF).  His concluding thought gave a
memorable close to the conference, with which I will also close this
trip report:
 
    Clarity, Precision and Ease of use does not mean
    Confinement, Verbosity and Futility.

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

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