May 2015 - Tei-council - lists.tei-c.org

Re: [tei-council] ROMA does not work
by Martin Holmes 26 May '15

26 May '15

Once the build process has gone through on Jenkins successfully, I'll test my new oxygen-tei plugin build script by doing "ant release" to see what happens. :-) Cheers, Martin On 15-05-26 09:09 AM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote: > Roma should be working again now. I made a new Stylesheets release and deployed it around. > > Many apologies for that. > > Sebastian Rahtz > Chief Data Architect > University of Oxford IT Services > +44 1865 283431 >

1 0

bad date example
by Syd Bauman 26 May '15

26 May '15

We have a single example (used twice with slight differences) that shows use of dating attributes in a way I think may be inappropriate: <residence from="1857-03-01" notAfter="1857-04-30">From the 1st of March to some time in April of 1857.</residence> I don't like the combination of @from and @notAfter. As I understand (or at least imagine) it: @from and @to: indicate a range of dates during which something happened -- the thing happens during the entire range. <persName from="1940-10-09" to="1969-04-21">Lennon, John Winston</> <persName from="1969-04-22" to="1980-12-08">Lennon, John Winston Ono</> or <occupation from="1991" to="1994">Provost, Duke University</> For the *entire period* from 09 Oct 40 to 21 Apr 69 his name was "John Winston Lennon", and for the *entire period* from the day he legally changed his name (22 Apr 69) to his death (08 Dec 80) his name was "John Winston Ono Lennon". Similarly, Tommy Langford was Provost from 1991 to 1994. We don't know what day he became Provost or what day he stepped down, so the values of @from and @to are given only to year precision. Fair enough. (If we knew more, we could provide more precision.) @notBefore and @notAfter: indicate the earliest and latest endpoints for a single event to have occurred. Typically, but not at all necessarily, that event is measured in the precision of a single day. E.g. <death notBefore="1831" notAfter="1840"/> indicates that Mary Clarke [nee Carr] died sometime between those dates. She died on one day[1] during those days, she did not spend all 9 years in the throes of death. I think these notions of @from and @to indicating a *duration* during which something happened continuously, and @notBefore and @notAfter indicating endpoints within which range something happened at a given point, is borne out by the definitions in the tagdocs: - notBefore: specifies the earliest possible date for the event - notAfter: specifies the latest possible date for the event - from: indicates the starting point of the period - to: indicates the ending point of the period Thus my unease with the example <residence from="1857-03-01" notAfter="1857-04-30">From the 1st of March to some time in April of 1857.</residence> To me, the @from indicates that she lived there for a 1-2 month long period starting 01 March; but the @notAfter (at least, taken alone) implies that she lived there for one day[2] some day before 01 May. So I'm sure I don't like this, although I'm not sure how to solve the problem, i.e. how this information should be indicated. Possibilities include: * State explicitly in the prose what @from & @notAfter or @notBefore & @to mean. (To wit, an entire duration of vague length, specified by one endpoint and a point over which the duration did not extend.) * Indicate the duration with a start point and a duration, then indicate the (lack of) precision of the duration: <residence xml:id="R" from="1857-03-01" dur="P46D"> From the 1st of March to some time in April of 1857. </residence> <precision target="#R" match="@dur" atLeast="31" atMost="61"/> Don't like this as it sits, because it only works because we presume the unit @atLeast & @atMost refer to is days. Makes sense for this case, but if the dur= were "P1M15D" it would be less obvious. I presume if it were "P1.5M", one would have to use atLeast=1 atMost=2; i.e. the precision attrs apply to the lowest order component. So I guess we could make this work by making that the rule. * Fix <precision> so that it allows representation of precision (meaning the unit or number of significant digits to which a value may be measured reliably) rather than just precision (meaning vaguely how exact or accurate). Then <residence xml:id="R" from="1857-03-01" to="1857-04-15"> From the 1st of March to some time in April of 1857. </residence> <precision target="#R" match="@to" dur="P15D"/> or whatever. * Create new attributes (egads!) to mean exactly what we want. E.g., @fromAfter and @toBefore. * Don't fix it. Caveat encoder. People tend to know what you mean. Besides, what possible automated processing will handle this stuff? Notes ----- [1] Actually one second, but let's not go nuts. [2] Or only one second, but let's not go nuts.

5 8

agenda item / bug
by Syd Bauman 25 May '15

25 May '15

Julia just reminded me that <event> still is not allowed as a child or grandchild of <org>. Off the top of my head, I don't see why <listEvent> is not a member of model.orgPart. Not quite so obvious how to make <event> an eligible direct child of <org>, but it seems like a reasonable request. I plan to submit a bug report shortly, with hopes that we can tackle this and solve it for next release. (Although I have my suspicions that this will bring up other thorny issues.)

3 3

Transcription of spoken language draft
by Martin Holmes 21 May '15

21 May '15

Hi all, I was just following up with Thomas Schmidt on this ticket: <http://sourceforge.net/p/tei/feature-requests/511/> which is one of at least two relating to the ISO/TEI spoken language proposal, and he's sent me a draft dated April 27, which is later than the last one mentioned on Lou's ticket: <http://sourceforge.net/p/tei/feature-requests/539/> He's still not happy with this being posted publicly, so we need a method of distributing it which is not public. The simplest thing would perhaps be to wait until the FtF and then just email it around. Does that work, or should be devise a password-protected location for it? Cheers, Martin

3 4

duplicate @rend error in generated RNG schema
by James Cummings 20 May '15

20 May '15

I was just bitten by the side effect of moving @rend to att.global.rendition. In taking an old and perfectly fine TEI ODD, and generating a fresh schema from it, the RNG was invalid because of a duplicate definition of @rend. Changing it so that I modified @rend on att.global.rendition rather than att.global solved this. Took me a good 10 minutes staring at it to realise what was wrong. doh. I'm just mentioning it to put it in the back of your brain in case anyone asks in the future. -James -- Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings(a)it.ox.ac.uk Academic IT Services, University of Oxford

3 4

May F2F. Hotel information.
by Paul Schaffner 11 May '15

11 May '15

I have received the attached confirmation from the hotel, listing Council members and their intended arrival and departure dates. I would appreciate it if you could check to make sure yours is correct. As for payment, I am told that the library entered an "accounting nightmare" the last time they tried to pay for everyone as a package deal. Is everyone willing to pay their own bill and ask for TEI reimbursement? If not, I could conceivably pay for everyone personally in advance, and then ask TEI to reimburse. But that would be quite a lot to put on my personal credit card. pfs -- Paul Schaffner Digital Library Production Service PFSchaffner(a)umich.edu | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/

10 17

Notes on standoff
by Hugh Cayless 08 May '15

08 May '15

I’m finally getting a chance to look seriously at the standoff ODD and so I wanted to pull together my own notes and get some discussion going here that we can feed back to the proposers. 1) Why such an elaborate header? (see https://github.com/laurentromary/stdfSpec/blob/master/Specification/standof… <https://github.com/laurentromary/stdfSpec/blob/master/Specification/standof…>) I can understand wanting to have some description of the content of <stdf> (or <ldb> as Syd proposed—I happen to like that better), but this seems maybe a bit overboard. Why can’t the document’s own revisionDesc serve to document revisions to the standoff section, for example? 2) Since standoff elements can nest, why do we need the <annotations> element? (see https://github.com/laurentromary/stdfSpec/blob/master/Specification/standof… <https://github.com/laurentromary/stdfSpec/blob/master/Specification/standof…>). Wouldn’t it be simpler to allow the standoff element just to contain a heading and its content, optionally including more standoff elements? 3) I can sort of guess what <mapStruct> might be for, but it isn’t very clear (see https://github.com/laurentromary/stdfSpec/blob/master/Specification/standof… <https://github.com/laurentromary/stdfSpec/blob/master/Specification/standof…>). Do we not already have sufficient mechanisms for attaching standoff markup to its targets? That’s all I’ve got for now. What do you think? We’re going to beam Laurent in for a discussion at the F2F on Friday the 29th at 10:00.

3 5

Problems with the UVic Jenkins server
by Martin Holmes 05 May '15

05 May '15

Hi all, Just a heads-up that a router update early this morning screwed up a bunch of our virtual machines when their filesystems became inaccessible; and then on restarting, an old obsolete machine was substituted accidentally for our current Jenkins server, and the latter may have been lost completely. Don't ask how such a thing could happen. Anyway, it means we may not have a UVic Jenkins for a while (I'm leaving town for a conference tomorrow morning). The Oxford Jenkins, meanwhile, has run out of disk space. :-( This may mean that I end up doing something I was hoping to put off till the summer: writing the new Jenkins build script and testing it. But that's hard to do on a crappy old laptop that can't run VMs, so it'll have to wait till I get back next week. There's a chance Systems can salvage our Jenkins, though. Keep your fingers crossed. Cheers, Martin

3 3