WürzburgTEI102011 Participants

From IntereditionWiki

TEI & Interoperability Think Tank

October 12 2011, TEI Members Meeting, Würzburg Germany

Statements


Template

Call for proposals

See WürzburgTEI102011_CFP‎ for a description of the topic of interest.

Discussion protocol

SB: there are no more tools (for metrical analysis i.e.) for microformats; they don't exist for either format

DR: RDF has the advantage that one's own connections (annotations) can make their way much easier to the world (web)

FJ: TEI is just a bag of concepts, it is not primarily the expression side, but the semantics

DR agrees that the semantics of TEI are valuable

GM: what is the value proposition (tools); what do i get for encoding in TEI: there are no tools

WP: interoperability by doing might sort out which parts of the TEI are most valuable

SR: There could be a subset of TEI, but who defindes it?

DR: problem: there is no easy way to use or view TEI (one cannot just open it in the browser)

SB: even less so with microformats

WP: the application for encoding must first be defined, and you can't do that for an open research project

DR: TEI funding should go to applications

SB: that is precisely the problem with HTML - a too narrow an application

TA : simple application would at least be one step more than validation

DR: validation is a tool that has only itself as an end

SR generally agrees

JC: semantic level cannot be checked

MW: political or organizational side (standardisation body vs crowd) is mirrored in technological side (xml markup vs. microformats) / microformats let you contribute to semantics in a decentralised way / implications for sustainability

DR: html has a very big adoption advantage because the visualisation is built-in

WP: the ambiguity is a problem in the TEI; there need to be core tools that can understand TEI core set and say what elements it doesn't know. this is not the same as validation

GM: the question is, how can the TEI XML serialization be converted into another serialisation format / for example, there is no transposition element; not in the guidelines although possible implemented already on ideosyncratic markup / tools give you a much better idea of what really need to be there

JC: community development does takes place

WP the discussions boils down to organizational questions; bottleneck of standardisatino body

JC you don't have to go through that bottleneck, there is ODD / there are lots of tools

TA: there are no interoperable tools

SB: that is because of conceptual differences

FJ: practical problems: the Textgrid baseline encoding is meant to be about interoperability; it has shown that noone actually wants to take on the boring work to make their encoding interoparable / the average scholar operates in a very individual fashion and doen't need/want exchange. FJ poses the closing question to the proponents of microformats: how would that standardisation of semantics work in practise?

DR: the interoperability would emerge / different people could write mappings to each others formats

TA: we should come from the (small) tools (as opposed to annotations) that scholars identify as a common need and then get together

SB: the TEI was supposed to be a centralized 'star' graph (with n connections) not n^2 connections, but it showed that people skipped the center / SB defends the original TEI approach; only very specific individual annotations are incompatible, for a great range of elements the specification is clear

JC points out the evolution of the TEI