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

Monthly call
by Scholger, Martina (martina.scholger＠uni-graz.at) 09 Oct '18

09 Oct '18

Dear all, looking at the doodle I am somewhat at a loss. There is no single date and time where everyone on the Council is available. The "best" we could do is Friday at 20:00Z, but Magdalena would not be able to join and three people would rather not. The next best would be Friday at 19:00Z, but with two people missing. I don't think that we should schedule a regular date where we already know that at least one person will not be able to make it. I would ask everyone to have one more look at the doodle and consider if you can possibly make more choices. Keep in mind that we are meeting just once a month. https://doodle.com/poll/kk9hsr6z9csxhkub If we can't find a common date that way, would it make a difference if the call would be just 60 instead of 90 minutes? Are there other suggestions to solve our dilemma? Best wishes, Martina

2 3

Travis ne Jenkins ne local
by Syd Bauman 05 Oct '18

05 Oct '18

The dev branch now has all the deprecations valid until 2018-10-01 removed, and its build working ala Travis. However, said build is not working in Jenkins (on either jenkins or jenkins2 -- for some reason the former does not have parsed console output, but it is the same error), and is working on my local system, after a fashion. The error on Jenkins, however, is completely mysterious. It has *nothing* to do with anything that I am aware of having changed. The ONVDL validation of Exemplars/tei_enrich.odd against Exemplars/tei_enrich.nvdl is failing with error: bad value for attribute "columns" where the value for @columns is "1", and thus is perfectly fine. I can, with some effort, reproduce this error on my local system. All of the @columns attrs in tei_enrich.odd are on elements in the teix: namespace, i.e. within <egXML>. I am pretty sure the only schema tei_enrich.nvdl runs against that namespace is tei_enrich-examples.rng. And lo and behold, when I look at that schema the definition of @columns of <layout> is obviously screwball: | <attribute name="columns"> | <a:documentation xmlns:a="http://relaxng.org/ns/compatibility/annotations/1.0">specifies | the number of columns per page</a:documentation> | <list> | <rng:empty xmlns:rng="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"/> | </list> | </attribute> I poked around and found that the tei_enrich.odd file changes the definition of <layout> a teeny bit: | <elementSpec ident="layout" mode="change" module="msdescription"> | <attList> | <attDef ident="columns" mode="change" usage="req"/> | </attList> | </elementSpec> But that specification is in a paragraph of prose that essentially negates it: | <p>Note that if (as in the last example above) no value is given for | the <att>columns</att> attribute, the assumption is that there is a | single column of writing on each page. (And is incorrect, in that the prior example does have a value for layout/@columns.) So I claim that a) This is a Stylesheets issue. Somehow changing @columns to required has nuked its datatype, which is supposed to be ( data.count, data.count? ) b) The Enrich ODD has other problems, too I'm too tired now to do much more on this tonight.

4 5

cannot build
by Lou Burnard 04 Oct '18

04 Oct '18

I updated Stylesheets, and pulled the latest P5 sources, and ran "make clean; make" Everything worked up to the point where the "special purpose" validity checks began. At that point I got a shed load of annoying errors, starting with BUILD: Check validity with special-purpose XSL code, looking for bad links etc ANT_OPTS="-Xss2m -Xmx752m -Djava.awt.headless=true" ant -q -lib Utilities/lib/saxon9he.jar -f antbuilder.xml -DXSL=/usr/share/xml/tei/stylesheet validators [echo] Run Schematron script (normal part of Guidelines) [echo] Run Schematron script (Examples in Guidelines marked as valid) [echo] Run ad hoc XSLT validators BUILD SUCCESSFUL Total time: 27 seconds <Messages> <ERROR>Schematron error: The data.certaintyconstruct is outdated (as of 2018-10-01); ODD processors may ignore it, and its use is no longer supported [Test: @validUntil cast as xs:date ge current-date()] Location: /TEI[1]/text[1]/body[1]/div[1]/div[6]/macroSpec[1]</ERROR> <WARNING>Schematron warning: The data.certainty construct becomes outdated on 2018-10-01 [Test: @validUntil cast as xs:date ge $advance_warning_period] Location: /TEI[1]/text[1]/body[1]/div[1]/div[6]/macroSpec[1]</WARNING> [and so on for a few screens, concluding with] <WARNING>Schematron warning: The macro.anyXML construct becomes outdated on 2018-06-12 [Test: @validUntil cast as xs:date ge (current-date() + (60*xs:dayTimeDuration('P1D')))] Location: /TEI[1]/text[1]/body[1]/div[1]/div[4]/div[1]/specGrp[1]/macroSpec[7]</WARNING> > <ERROR>Schematron error: > Error: both the versionDate and xml:lang attributes on "remarks" are required when it is a child of "attDef". > [Test: not( @xml:lang and @versionDate )] Location: /TEI[1]/text[1]/body[1]/div[22]/div[3]/specGrp[1]/elementSpec[4]/attList[1]/attDef[1]/remarks[1]</ERROR> Makefile:185: recipe for target 'valid' failed make: *** [valid] Error 1 lou@foxglove:~/Public/TEI/P5$ Tell me, what have I done to deserve this?

3 6

Spring F2F meeting
by Scholger, Martina (martina.scholger＠uni-graz.at) 04 Oct '18

04 Oct '18

Dear all, picking up on the minutes from our last call I would ask everyone who offered to host the next Spring F2F meeting to confirm their willingness to do so and to set out the possibilities in terms of place and date before our next call. We should figure out what is feasible as soon as possible. We have offers from: Elli at Brown University in Providence James at Newcastle University Magdalena in Warsaw Raff at Folger Library in Washington D.C. Best wishes, Martina

2 1

Re: [Tei-council] Stylesheets v7.46.0 released
by James Cummings 03 Oct '18

03 Oct '18

re: council responsibility. Council responsibility for stylesheets is for those that we use to generate the website and those that we use to process ODDs. Everything else is optional but nice for the community (IMHO) Many thanks, James -- Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings(a)newcastle.ac.uk School of English Literature, Language, and Linguistics, Newcastle University ________________________________ From: Tei-council <tei-council-bounces(a)lists.tei-c.org> on behalf of Raffaele Viglianti <raffaeleviglianti(a)gmail.com> Sent: 02 October 2018 15:35:45 To: Peter Stadler Cc: tei-council(a)lists.tei-c.org; Martin Holmes Subject: Re: [Tei-council] Stylesheets v7.46.0 released I added a couple paragraphs to the document, let me know what you think. This conversation we're having echos the worry I expressed in my first email: > I don't know if stylesheets releases need to be announced on TEI-L, especially since we don't assemble a document listing changes besides a generated changelog. Perhaps the paragraph I added are enough, but it's easy to go down a rabbit hole. The Stylesheets are important, but it's still unclear how much of a responsibility council has towards them since our primary goal is maintaining and improving the TEI Guidelines. All best, Raff On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:18 AM Peter Stadler <stadler(a)edirom.de<mailto:stadler@edirom.de>> wrote: I agree that the current draft is not very helpful except for saying "there is a new release“. We should add a) the main motivation. It is unusual that we are doing a Stylesheets release out of sync with the Guidelines. AFAIK, the main motivation is Raff’s work on RomaJS and his need for p5subset.json, leading to various changes to odd2json.xsl in the Stylesheets repo. That need to be mentioned. @raff: could you elaborate a little bit on those changes? what’s different now in the resulting p5subset.json? (and what’s the difference to p5subset.js?) b) nothing more. The rest is indeed technical stuff and won’t improve any research. Best Peter > Am 02.10.2018 um 13:01 schrieb Vanessa Bigot-Juloux <vanessa.bigot-juloux(a)ephe.psl.eu<mailto:vanessa.bigot-juloux@ephe.psl.eu>>: > > Dear all, > > I have added a comment on the doc two days ago. However, it needs further explanations: > I have looked to TEI council profiles; from what I understood, you have a lot of knowledge in encoding, more than a lot of digital practitioners who use TEI (and other encoding languages needed to work with TEI) mostly for their investigation in a text/corpus/artefact. This is my case: I use TEI and other languages because I need these tools for investigating my corpus. By saying this, I have not the same background/knowledge (and goal) than most of you. Thus, if you agree, my first remarks will rather be (at least for now) to make sure than beginners or digital practitioners (but no experts in programming languages) will be able to understand not only encoding but also how it can help them to improve their research. In addition, I think we need to take advantage of each opportunity for doing a little pedagogy and the Stylesheets released is a good opportunity. > When you did the release of the Guidelines http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/readme-3.1.0.html (thanks James), you tried to give a few helpful information—although we can always be improved. > As for this Stylesheets release, I think we need to give further information regarding the issues resolved--not for all topics since a few of them will not be as much interest for beginners or average level. For example, something like: > “Among other issues resolved in the last stylesheets v7.46.0 released: > - In order to avoid a schematron [link] processor (in other words rule-based validation language) error regarding @ageAtDeath [link], rather used teidata.count [link] attribute group instead of teidana.numeric [link] (https://github.com/TEIC/Stylesheets/issues/322)”--I don’t know if it was updated on TEI website, but if this is the case, also add the TEI link updated. > - …” > > However, we need to ask ourselves the following question: how the issues resolved can be helpful to beginner and average level practitioners, in order to choose the issues which need more information. > Lastly, I’m not convince all readers will understand what is “stylesheets released.” —maybe under bracket something like “improvements according to issues resolved.” > > I suggest that the message has two sections: one for experts and one for beginners and average levels practitioners. > > Hope my explanation is clear enough… and that I’m not getting wrong in TEI council goals. > > Best, > Vanessa > > >> Le 30 sept. 2018 à 17:19, Scholger, Martina (martina.scholger(a)uni-graz.at<mailto:martina.scholger@uni-graz.at>) <martina.scholger(a)uni-graz.at<mailto:martina.scholger@uni-graz.at>> a écrit : >> >> Ah, thanks. Changed the milestone to 7.46 in Github. >> >> Best, Martina >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: Tei-council <tei-council-bounces(a)lists.tei-c.org<mailto:tei-council-bounces@lists.tei-c.org>> Im Auftrag von Syd Bauman >> Gesendet: Samstag, 29. September 2018 21:56 >> An: tei-council(a)lists.tei-c.org<mailto:tei-council@lists.tei-c.org>; Martin Holmes <mholmes(a)uvic.ca<mailto:mholmes@uvic.ca>> >> Betreff: Re: [Tei-council] Stylesheets v7.46.0 released >> >> Sorry, hit "send" before I was even done writing, let alone editing, that. >> >> Martina -- I don't know if you created a 7.45, 7.46, or 7.47 milestone. You may need to tweak the GiHub milestones or the e-mail to fit. >> _______________________________________________ >> Tei-council mailing list >> Tei-council(a)lists.tei-c.org<mailto:Tei-council@lists.tei-c.org> >> http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council >> _______________________________________________ >> Tei-council mailing list >> Tei-council(a)lists.tei-c.org<mailto:Tei-council@lists.tei-c.org> >> http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council > > _______________________________________________ > Tei-council mailing list > Tei-council(a)lists.tei-c.org<mailto:Tei-council@lists.tei-c.org> > http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council _______________________________________________ Tei-council mailing list Tei-council(a)lists.tei-c.org<mailto:Tei-council@lists.tei-c.org> http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

3 2

Adding or Editing an Appendix - TCW20
by Scholger, Martina (martina.scholger＠uni-graz.at) 03 Oct '18

03 Oct '18

Dear all, Martin asked me to forward a message: "I've added a section to TCW20 on how to add or edit appendices to the Guidelines, since Syd and I have just been figuring out how that works for issue #1657: <http://teic.github.io/TCW/tcw20.html#appendices>" Thanks Martin for adding this! Best wishes, Martina

1 0

Re: [Tei-council] TCW 20 Revision on Branch Practice?
by James Cummings 03 Oct '18

03 Oct '18

I'd say that not all tickets are Guidelines related (e.g. we have a label for TEI:Website and another for TEI:Build Process), so perfectly reasonable to have a ticket as a place for conversation about this that we might return to in the future. That is assuming that this is something that might have several iterations, tests, decision about which is the best way, etc. If it is a straightforward "Let's test this, oh look, it works now let's document that." then maybe a ticket is not needed. My two pence, James -- Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings(a)newcastle.ac.uk School of English Literature, Language, and Linguistics, Newcastle University ________________________________ From: Tei-council <tei-council-bounces(a)lists.tei-c.org> on behalf of Elisa Beshero-Bondar <ebb8(a)pitt.edu> Sent: 03 October 2018 12:10:28 To: TEI Council Subject: Re: [Tei-council] TCW 20 Revision on Branch Practice? PS: Should I open that as a ticket? Since it's not specifically Guidelines-related, I'm not sure...figured I'd sound us out here first. Thanks, Elisa On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 7:08 AM Elisa Beshero-Bondar <ebbondar(a)gmail.com<mailto:ebbondar@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Council, I was just re-reading TCW 20 to remind myself what we advise each other on working in feature branches, and how to update them. You may remember some excitement during our Tokyo face-to-face as I first nearly bungled a branch merge and then we fixed it. This was, I think, a bit too much excitement, and lots of us do work in branches. When it comes time to update them and/or merge them back into dev, we don't always know exactly what to do, and just relying on looking stuff up is, as we saw, a little brittle and error prone. We are pretty confident we can fix anything that goes wrong, but perhaps we can minimize the excitement with a little more guidance to our future selves. So, I'm writing this to propose some revision to this portion of TCW 20: "If you are working on a particularly complex change involving multiple files, it may be better to create a branch in which to work on your changes, and then to merge the branch when you are confident that the work is successfully completed. See any guide to git for instructions on how to approach that. Bear in mind that our Jenkins servers only build the dev branch, so you cannot depend on them to test-build your working branch." I'd like to propose rewriting that with some more detailed steps on our TEI Technical Council preferred process for reconciling branches with dev, to help prevent future excitement. :-) I've been reading about the "best" ways to keep branches updated, and the differences, for example, between rebase and merge for keeping a branch tip updated. Rebasing is pretty dangerous in that it "rewrites history" by resequencing commits, so I am not sure we ever want to use it for updating a branch from dev, before merging it back. Do we want to always advise, then, to update a branch by merging it with dev? I'm not 100% certain of that either. What I'd like to do is (very careful) test a few approaches and work with you all to try to plot out an excitement-proof set of safe guidelines for Council members on Best Practices for Working in Branches as part of TCW 20. What say you all? Elisa -- Elisa Beshero-Bondar, PhD Associate Professor of English University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg Humanities Division 150 Finoli Drive Greensburg, PA 15601 USA E-mail: ebb8(a)pitt.edu<mailto:ebb8@pitt.edu> -- Elisa Beshero-Bondar, PhD Director, Center for the Digital Text | Associate Professor of English University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg | Humanities Division 150 Finoli Drive Greensburg, PA 15601 USA E-mail: ebb8(a)pitt.edu<mailto:ebb8@pitt.edu> Development site: http://newtfire.org<http://newtfire.org/>

4 3

TCW 20 Revision on Branch Practice?
by Elisa Beshero-Bondar 03 Oct '18

03 Oct '18

Dear Council, I was just re-reading TCW 20 to remind myself what we advise each other on working in feature branches, and how to update them. You may remember some excitement during our Tokyo face-to-face as I first nearly bungled a branch merge and then we fixed it. This was, I think, a bit too much excitement, and lots of us do work in branches. When it comes time to update them and/or merge them back into dev, we don't always know exactly what to do, and just relying on looking stuff up is, as we saw, a little brittle and error prone. We are pretty confident we can fix anything that goes wrong, but perhaps we can minimize the excitement with a little more guidance to our future selves. So, I'm writing this to propose some revision to this portion of TCW 20: "If you are working on a particularly complex change involving multiple files, it may be better to create a branch in which to work on your changes, and then to merge the branch when you are confident that the work is successfully completed. See any guide to git for instructions on how to approach that. Bear in mind that our Jenkins servers only build the dev branch, so you cannot depend on them to test-build your working branch." I'd like to propose rewriting that with some more detailed steps on our TEI Technical Council preferred process for reconciling branches with dev, to help prevent future excitement. :-) I've been reading about the "best" ways to keep branches updated, and the differences, for example, between rebase and merge for keeping a branch tip updated. Rebasing is pretty dangerous in that it "rewrites history" by resequencing commits, so I am not sure we ever want to use it for updating a branch from dev, before merging it back. Do we want to always advise, then, to update a branch by merging it with dev? I'm not 100% certain of that either. What I'd like to do is (very careful) test a few approaches and work with you all to try to plot out an excitement-proof set of safe guidelines for Council members on Best Practices for Working in Branches as part of TCW 20. What say you all? Elisa -- Elisa Beshero-Bondar, PhD Associate Professor of English University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg Humanities Division 150 Finoli Drive Greensburg, PA 15601 USA E-mail: ebb8(a)pitt.edu

2 1

two dates are not better than one
by s.bauman＠northeastern.edu 02 Oct '18

02 Oct '18

When I went to actually nuke data.*.xml, I ran into a problem. There were two that were still referenced in the Guidelines: data.temporal.iso.xml and data.duration.iso.xml from ND.[1] I initially "fixed" this by just changing "data." to "teidata." on those two instances in ND. This broke the build horrifically -- the definitions of various attrs (like att.temporal.when.iso) now had *two* lists of possible values. Took some digging around but I found that the "correct" datatypes (teidata.duration.iso.xml, and teidata.temporal.iso.xml) were (incorrectly, I think) still being referenced from ST. I commented out those references in ST, and the build was back to normal (and matches the prose). So that all seems good. BUT, there is still a problem. This means that there are several validation errors that have now crept in: memberOf points to non-existent att.duration.iso ident points to non-existent att.duration.iso ident points to non-existent att.duration.iso ident points to non-existent att.duration.iso ident points to non-existent att.duration.iso specDesc points to non-existent att.duration.iso I am not quite sure what to do about this. While technically validation problems, they don't (I don't think) actually cause any difficulties when building outputs from the source. So rather than check these changes into dev, I have (with Hugh's help) checked them into a new branch, sydb-endDeprecation_2018-10-01. But we should decide what to do about this soon (measured in hours to days), as the deprecation period is now over. One possibility (that I am leaning towards right now): These errors are generated by the special-purpose validation routine P5/Utilities/validator.xsl, referred to in the Makefile with "Check validity with special-purpose XSL code, looking for bad links etc". We could simply update that code so it "knows" about these particular cases, and does not flag them as errors. But before we even think of that, either a) someone else who builds locally should checkout the sydb-endDeprecation_2018-10-01 branch and check that the build is working. (I only tested validate, html-web, and exemplars, I think.), or b) we'll have to ask MH or PS to set up a Jenkins job for this branch. (Seems like overkill to me.) Note-for-Vanessa ---------------- [1] The vast majority of the source files to Guidelines chapters are each stored in an XML file that starts with a 2-letter code. Thus I am using "ND" as shorthand for .../P5/Source/Guidelines/en/ND-NamesDates.xml where "..." is wherever on your system you keep the TEIC/TEI git repo. The chapter files are: * AB-About.xml * AI-AnalyticMechanisms.xml * CC-LanguageCorpora.xml * CE-CertaintyResponsibility.xml * CH-LanguagesCharacterSets.xml * CO-CoreElements.xml * DI-PrintDictionaries.xml * DR-PerformanceTexts.xml * DS-DefaultTextStructure.xml * FS-FeatureStructures.xml * FT-TablesFormulaeGraphics.xml * GD-GraphsNetworksTrees.xml * HD-Header.xml * MS-ManuscriptDescription.xml * ND-NamesDates.xml * NH-Non-hierarchical.xml * PH-PrimarySources.xml * SA-LinkingSegmentationAlignment.xml * SG-GentleIntroduction.xml * ST-Infrastructure.xml * TC-CriticalApparatus.xml * TD-DocumentationElements.xml * TS-TranscriptionsofSpeech.xml * USE.xml * VE-Verse.xml * WD-NonStandardCharacters.xml

5 5

Stylesheets v7.46.0 released
by Raffaele Viglianti 02 Oct '18

02 Oct '18

Dear council, Syd and I, with the help of Martin Holmes and Peter Stadler, have just completed a new release of the stylesheets v7.46.0. In the process, we've also made a couple of updates to tcw22 and the utility script tei-install.sh. I don't know if stylesheets releases need to be announced on TEI-L, especially since we don't assemble a document listing changes besides a generated changelog. The freeze on the dev branch is now over, code away. Raff

5 7