WürzburgTEI102011 Participants
From IntereditionWiki
Contents |
TEI & Interoperability Think Tank
October 12 2011, TEI Members Meeting, Würzburg Germany
Statements
- Wendell Piez
- Doug Reside
- Sebastian Rahtz
- Gregor Middell
- Tara Andrews
- Ron van den Branden
- Toma Tasovac
- Luise Borek
- Syd Bauman
- Federico Meschini
- Andrea Scotti
- Moritz Wissenbach
- Marco Petris
- Troy Griffitts
- Asaf Bartov
- Fotis Jannidis
- Hans Walter Gabler
- James Cummings
- Grant Dickie
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