========================================================================= Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 12:45:16 CST Reply-To: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list Sender: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list From: microsoft!asmusf@UUNET.UU.NET Subject: Re: Text Encoding Initiative Could Use Copies of Unicode 1.0, I think! We at the Unicode working group thought that you might be interested in hearing about this. The text is a (slightly updated) copy of a short announcement that we put out on several aliases in December. We are actively soliciting review of the Unicode draft until February 15, 1991. Thanks, A. Unicode in Final Review Stage After many years of practical experience implementing multilingual computer systems, information professionals from various corporations shared a common frustration in dealing with the incompleteness and complexity of multilingual character code standards. In 1989 a working group of engineers, managers, linguists, and information professionals from companies and institutions whose business required multilingual information systems formed a working group to develop a model for an international character code for multilingual information processing. Collaborating companies included Apple, IBM, Metaphor, Microsoft, NeXT, Research Libraries Group, Sun, Xerox and others. The product of the collaboration is called Unicode. Unicode is a world wide, fixed-width, 16-bit character encoding scheme for text characters. In January 1991, the Unicode Consortium incorporated to bring Unicode to the world under the sponsorship of a multi-corporate, multi-national, non-profit organization. A primary goal of the consortium is to establish Unicode itself as a de facto international character standard while continuing to propose its adoption by national and international standards organizations. Membership in the consortium is open to all who support Unicode principles. The specification for Unicode Version 1.0 is due for release in early 1991. For a copy of the final review draft of the proposed Unicode standard, contact, Unicode Final Review , c/o Asmus Freytag Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond WA 98052-6399 USA E-Mail: microsoft!asmusf@uunet.uu.net . For more information about membership in the Unicode consortium, please contact, Ken Whistler Metaphor Computer Systems 1965 Charleston Rd Moutain View CA 94043 USA E-Mail: whistler@metaphor.com . --- END --- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 15:54:08 MEZ Reply-To: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list Sender: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list From: s ertel Subject: Re: Racine and automatic IPA transcription In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 17 Dec 90 11:17:41 EST from Re: Phonetic transcription software for modern English I could offer to anyone phonetic transcription software for modern English (free of charge, quality not checked yet). Transcription software for modern German, high quality, but expensive, will soon be available at the INSTITUT FUER ANGEWANDTE KOMMUNIKATIONS- UND SPRACHFORSCHNG E.V., POPPELSDORFER ALLEE 47, D-5300 BONN 1. I still need phonetic transcription software for modern French. I would be delighted to be given a helping hand on the present occasion via SERTEL at DGOGWDG1.BITNET. (Pardon me, TEI subscribers not interested in this stuff which might be important, though, to some of you, as it is for me). Suitbert Ertel ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 08:44:00 PST Reply-To: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list Sender: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list From: Vicki Fromkin Subject: PHONETIC TRANSCRIPTION What does the phonetic transcription software for English do? I would certainly be interested. Vicki Fromkin - iyo1vaf@uclamvs.bitnet ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 12:35:37 CST Reply-To: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list Sender: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list Comments: "ACH / ACL / ALLC Text Encoding Initiative" From: Michael Sperberg-McQueen 312 996-2477 -2981 Subject: report on a recent workshop Readers of TEI-L may be interested in this report on a workshop on (library treatment of) computer files held last week here in Chicago. The existence of the workshop (held in conjunction with the ALA midwinter meeting here in town) and the good attendance at it bear witness to the growing interest of librarians in ensuring that machine-readable texts can be successfully integrated into the normal range of library services much as other non-book materials have been. Not all examples of library alphabet soup have been expanded, on the theory that most interested readers will know their expansions (queries to me individually please, not the list). -CMSMcQ ----- Meeting Report, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen Research Libraries Group Computer Files Workshop January 11, 1991 The Research Libraries Group held a one-day workshop on computer files at the University of Chicago's Regenstein Library on Friday, 11 January 1991. The workshop addressed the major issues confronted by research libraries as they acquire computer files and assist patrons in their use; general sessions on the nature and uses of computer files in the social sciences and the humanities were followed by more specialized discussions of cataloging and management issues and the internal construction of social science data sets. The morning began with a talk on "The History and Nature of Computer Files in the Humanities and Social Sciences" by Judith Rowe of Princeton University and C. M. Sperberg-McQueen of the University of Illinois and the TEI (a ringer at this meeting, since UIC is an OCLC library). The speakers began with a discussion of the various ways machine-readable data files are structured (in part as a function of the technologies available for processing them) and then embarked on a historical tour of work with machine-readable data files. The tour began in earnest in the 1930s, though preliminary retrospective glances went as far back as the Masoretic study of the Old Testament text in the years 500-1000 of the common era (introduction of word- and letter-counts and invention of the checksum) and the invention of the note card. From the welter of names, dates, and places, the auditors gained (they said later) a good sense of the variety of uses to which researchers have put machine-readable data and the long history behind the field as it currently exists. The latter half of the morning was given over to a panel discussion of "Electronic Files: Use and the Library" chaired by John Price-Wilkin of the University of Michigan. Lynn Marko, the head of monographic cataloguing at the University of Michigan, spoke about Michigan's experience providing standard-level cataloguing for materials at the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR); despite the information about the files contained in ICPSR's own guidebook and the preparatory work done by ICPSR and RLG in the project, the Michigan cataloguers found vast amounts of work still to do. Most difficult for them, Marko said, was the adjustment from two usual assumptions of cataloguing work: that the library owns the material being catalogued, and that the cataloguer has a hard copy of the material in hand and can inspect it directly. Both of these can be problematic for machine-readable data: the library is often cataloguing material owned by some other unit of the university (or, as in Michigan's case, by a consortium not part of the university at all), and the computer files are often not directly accessible to the cataloguer -- and seldom have normal bibliographic information attached to them even if they are. (This note recurred throughout the workshop: the failure of makers of machine-readable files to provide in-file information corresponding to a title-page and front-matter poses one of the greatest barriers to proper bibliographic control of computer files.) Particular technical difficulties also occurred in assignment of subject headings (LC subject headings simply don't lend themselves to treatment of broad survey information) and interfaces with local systems (Michigan's computer-files records were unusually long for MARC records -- too long to load in their local system). Difficult though the ICPSR data had been, cataloguing text files acquired from the Oxford Text Archive was even more difficult, because so much of the required information was available neither from the computer file itself nor from the archive. The TEI recommendations for file headers should help alleviate such problems, Marko said, but need to pay more attention to standard titles and to specifying for commercial vendors what constitutes adequate infile documentation of a file. Anita Lowry of Columbia then described the Electronic Text Service within the reference department of the library there. She perceives an imaginative leap being made by increasing numbers of faculty and graduate students as they see the power of online systems and imagine that power available for text searching and manipulation. The Electronic Text Service represents the library's attempt to provide access to the full range of research tools used today, supported by the wide subject and specialized expertise needed, and to integrate machine-readable files and software into the resources of the library as a whole. She described at some length the infrastructure required for such successful integration and the approach taken at Columbia to instruction (consciousness raising, training in the mechanics of the software, consulting in the selection of tools, training materials, and a 1.5 credit graduate course in research methods). She ended by urging the need to integrate computer files and tools into the library as a whole and to avoid ghettoizing them. Ann Gray, the data archivist at the Cornell Institute for Social and Economic Research (CISER), then discussed the type of service to be aimed at by local data archives. Much of the conventional wisdom of data processing can be applied to data archive work: divide the problem, keep things simple, and don't make the solution tricky. The use of the material determines the information needs of the user. It is not enough to make data available to users; the data archivist must also be able to advise on the applicability of particular statistical measures to particular data sets. The goal must be to provide a level of service which is that of a colleague knowledgeable in the field. After lunch, parallel sessions were held on humanities files and social-science files. The humanities session was chaired by Marianne Gaunt of Rutgers, and featured remarks by Anita Lowry, John Price-Wilkin, and Mark Olsen of the ARTFL (American and French Research on the Treasury of the French Language) project at the University of Chicago. John Price-Wilkin began by describing the work he has done to provide machine-readable texts and search software at Michigan. PAT and Lector running on an IBM RS6000 with 3 Gb of disk space, attached to the university network, provide access to files acquired from the Oxford Text Archive and retagged locally for access through PAT. (The revised, retagged versions go back to Oxford for redeposit in the archive.) Typical problems with missing bibliographic data and eccentric markup were described, together with the solutions found so far. Marianne Gaunt at this point described the RLG/Rutgers project to develop MARC records for the holdings of the Oxford Text Archive. An archivist has been hired to go through the archive's paper files and produce hard copy extracts from each text for the use of a cataloguer in the Bodleian, who makes a MARC record in the local DOBIS system, which is then transferred to RLG for loading in RLIN. Descriptive information on the markup schemes employed in the archive's texts is woefully lacking. Anita Lowry discussed some of the problems encountered in making electronic texts available in machine-readable form. She stressed the distinction between commercially produced texts with clear publication data, documentation of copy text and modifications, identification of the markup scheme employed, and manuals, at one end of the spectrum, from the other end of the spectrum with 'unpublished' texts lacking documentation, quality control, and support. The main sources of files, she said, were projects (for which Michael Neuman's listing of projects was a valuable finding tool), commercial publishers (notably Electronic Text Corporation, Oxford University Press, and Intellex), archives such as OTA, and individuals. Mark Olsen concluded the session with a paper on the uses of machine-readable texts in which he concluded that so far computers in the humanities has had no impact on the practice of textual scholarship, because it has (a) lacked sufficient explicit theoretical reflection and clear theoretical basis and (b) ghettoized itself in marginal journals instead of publishing in the various mainstreams of the relevant disciplines. Computers should be used to do things that cannot usefully be done by hand; massive vocabulary studies of the sort done by John Burrows in his book on Austen were a good example of what should be done. During the second half of the afternoon, technical sessions and demonstrations of systems were intermingled. This writer saw a demonstration of the Philo/Philis interface to the ARTFL data base (fairly conventional word-form searches with slightly better than average treatment of word-groups and dynamic definitions of the corpus to be searched) and attended the discussion section on cataloguing issues, where specific issues of applying the MARC format for machine-readable data files were aired by practicing cataloguers. The most prominent systematic problems were the psychological difficulty for cataloguers of describing an item they did not have in hand, and the practical difficulty that even if the item was in hand (i.e. the cataloguer could mount the tape and dump the files) it often had no internal identifying information and was useless as a source of cataloguing information. The need to educate producers of data files to the need for reliable documentation was repeatedly stressed. The workshop as a whole impressed on this observer the strong commitment of the library community to expanding their current ability to handle machine-readable files and integrate them into library resources. It also confirmed the potential usefulness of the TEI encoding scheme as a common, fully documented, markup scheme and of the TEI's decision to include an infile header providing the information most needed for library-level cataloguing of the file. --- end --- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 21:05:00 CST Reply-To: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list Sender: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list From: FORTIER@UOFMCC.BITNET Subject: Survey Report LITERATURE NEEDS SURVEY RESULTS In late November l990 the TEI Working Group on Literature Texts sent out a survey to try and identify the needs of people working in literature with computers. Fifty-three responses were received to date. The following file contains a summary of the responses. To facilitate use of the data some organisational principles were applied to it. First, responses were classified into two groups: 1. Experienced interdisciplinary scholars, generally defined as people working in literature who have input texts, used texts from elsewhere, processed them and, usually published results based on their use of the computer. There were 40 responses from such people. 2. Other, people who are not literature scholars, not experienced with literature texts, etc. There were 14 responses from such people. These responses are not included in the following summary. The questions from the Questionnaire are repeated followed by a line of responses; the numbers indicate the number of respondants who checked each category; a category "Not Answered" is added where appropriate. After this line are found copies of all comments submitted by the first group of respondants. The numbers (1) to (40) permit the user to identify comments from a given respondant from one question to the next without revealing names. We wish, in transmitting this report, to thank all those who have given the committee their time and advice in this matter. We wish also to thank those who expressed solidarity with our work by sending in the form although literature is not their field, a number of whom appended a note to that effect. If you wish to help us with further comments please send them to me at FORTIER@UOFMCC.BITNET, or by paper post to Paul A. Fortier, Department of French and Spanish, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man., R3T 2N2, CANADA. Cordially, Paul A. Fortier, for the Literature Working Group. I. Standards for Literature Texts. I would rate the importance of the indicated categories to standards for literature texts as follows: A. Bibliographical Information : (Place, date of publication, edition, printing, etc): 32_Essential 7_Important __Not important 1_Should not be included Further comments: (2) The TEI Guidelines I thought did an excellent job of setting standards for these. (10) Documentation for early texts should make clear whether the spelling is old, or modernised to English or American standards. (16) : This information or some of the categories may be essential, depending on the case. For me, the date & edition. (22) *IF* facsimiles can be included in text-bases (26) Electronic texts that do not correspond to known printed editions make accurate citations impossible. (28) That bibliographic information be given is essential. That it be absolutely standard in form is only important. (34) Though I sometimes think it would be just as helpful if, for a given corpus, such details were included in a separate file. (35) Without bibliographic information the text would be useless for any comparative study. (38) Just place and date B. Formal Characteristics (Chapters and sub-chapters, page and line Breaks, stanza divisions, speakers in plays, stage directions, etc.): 35_Essential 5_Important __Not important __Should not be included Further comments: (2) Representation of the physical characteristics of the edition or MS used is very important. (4) In order to cite lexical searches, a textual location is essential. (10) In an archive, it is best to include all; the researcher can remove unwanted items. (16) Chapter or story divisions are often essential for me. (24) == rather a vague question: stage directions are not the same kind of formal characteristic as chapter divisions or line breaks, (26) Plays and poems have standard reference systems for location but prose fiction does not. Here electronic identifications may have no hard copy equivalents. (28) If you don't have the formal structure, you don't have the work. (29) By no means do all texts involved in the study of literature merit the efforts of received texts in terms of the extent of encoded informa- tion. The proceedings of an historical society, for instance, may be quite useful in the study of particular literature, but they may not be worth the effort required to provide full tagging. (33) This question seems to mix together several sorts of characteristics: structural divisions (chapters, lines in poetry, stanzas), pieces of text (stage directions), and typographical features which may have little relation to the work's form (most page breaks, line breaks in prose). Perhaps it would be more productive to ask two questions, about formal characteristics and typographical characteristics; the formal characteristics always need to be marked, but it's not always important to indicate things like line breaks in prose, depending on what you plan to do with the text. (34) Line breaks seem frquently less helpful except in verse and for manuscripts, especially since the best search programs do their own counting. (35) These elements are important if the text base is to be used for anything other that individual-item storage. (36) With maximum flexibility for representing alternative punctuation, breaks etc. WHENEVER these are not authorial/editorial absolutes. (39) Page and line breaks not important unless the first edition is a printed edition. Ancient and ms texts should not have the pagination of modern editions in them. C. Grammatical Information (Basic Form, Part of Speech, Inflection Identification, etc): 5_Essential 15_Important 5_Not important 10_Should not be included 5_Not Answered Further comments: (2) Standards for this information need to be provided for scholars who are interested in it, but provision should be optional. (4) While this would be nice, it would take forever! (I know from experience.) Furthermore, it would make the files extremely long. (6) The inclusion of morphological information might be essential for some purposes for some texts, but (given how much work is involved in coding such information) I would not want to make this a standard feature. (7) Not for lit. e-texts like those I usually use. (8) Some scholars with lexicographical and syntactic interests will find such information central; literary analysis will generally not require such markup. (10) Two versions should be held when possible; one with, the other without such information. (11) Conservative treatment preferred, with full account of categories and decisions (16) These categories are essential for me, but I am not convinced that generic e-texts should be tagged this way unless by the experts on grammar & the author. (19) Parts of Speech: A lot of variation in assigning their characteristics exists. Could be helpful if consistent. (20) But not necessarily in the standard encoding. There could be a companion analytical apparatus. (24) Rather depends on the application (26) I don't work currently in this area so I have no comment. (27) For this and the following categories, I don't mean to suggest that that every etext deposited in an archive should be required "by law" to encode such features, but I DO mean that standard ways for coding these features should be developed and published by the TEI. (28) All interpretation of linguistic objects (including literature) is based on linguistic understanding. Without ways to distinguish the various interpretations of an ambiguity, we cannot handle much serious work. (34) This is immediately a more contentious element, since the categorization is inevitably less "objective". (35) While this is not important to the ways in which I see myself using an electronic text, it might be important to a linguist. (36) Difficult. Emphasis must be on flexibility, and avoiding any hint of prescription which would encourage the tail to wag the dog. I'd be interested in anything that could relate this sort of tagging (of, eg, syntactical/semantic ambiguities or surface v. deep grammatical structures) with methods of representing such tensions dynamically. Distinction between tagging WITHIN the text and in separate files which could be integrated with the text is presumably important here. (37) I do use this, but this depends on the use to which the text is put; sometimes this information gets in the way. (39) I really think that this should be done by the researcher, not by the text preparer. D. Metrical Information for Poetry: 3_Essential 23_Important 5_Not important 3_Should not be included 6_Not Answered Further comments: (1) Hard for me to say. To what extent can metrics be automatically determined? If poorly, then this is ess. (2) Here again, this information is useful and standards for it should be established, but it should not be required. I am somewhat more in favor of providing it as a matter of course, simply because it can generally provided in a relatively easy fashion if you are thinking only of such things as line length and rhyme scheme. More detailed information (such as hiatus, synalepha, etc.) would normally be omitted. (4) I'm not sure. For my purposes, it is not necessary. (6) The inclusion of metrical information might be essential for some purposes for some texts, but (given how much work is involved in coding such information) I would not want to make this a standard feature. (7) depends totally on what is prepared for whom. (8) Important but subjective. Required markup should be descriptive and (more or less) objective. (10) Two versions should be held when possible; one with, the other without such information. (18) This can get rather complicated, especially with mixed meters, but should still be done. (21) Essential to me, but perhaps not to everyone (26) I don't work currently in this area so I have no comment. (28) If this is not defined, it will just have to be invented. (Ditto, of course, if it's defined but not in a useful way.) (33) The separation of this from categories C and E is, I hope, meant to suggest that it falls in between the categories of fact and interpretation. There exist a number of different theories of English prosody, and a standard can, at best, provide tags for some of these particular theories, none likely to be the last word. The situation for other languages may be simpler. (34) Of less relevance to French than to stress-timed languages. (35) Most folk can work this out for themselves. (36) Ditto. A generally accepted standard for generally accepted metrical principles would cope with the majority of conventional poetic texts by conventional researchers, and standard for such tagging would be valuable. As long as electronic text also encourages unconventional approaches with non-restricting guidelines i.e. tagging which allows text/analysis interchange and which is conformant with SGML/TEI sensitive programs but with the greatest freedom for researcher-defined categories within these constraints. (39) But metrical analysis is often a matter of controversy. Can the text preparer distinguish agreed-upon from contentious issues? E. Interpretative Information (e.g. Narrative vs. expository passages, direct and indirect discourse, point of view, themes, images, allusions, etc.): 8_Essential 7_Important 4_Not important 20_Should not be included 2_Not Answered Further comments: (1) Because such "information" is so mortal, there should always be a version at least without this in it, and it should be last on the list of things to do. NB: it is this category of information that interests me the most! (2) The problem with this category is that it becomes increasingly subjective. The more subjective it is, the less justification there is for including it as part of a standardized text; although, again, tags should be provided. (4) The direct discourse should be clear from quotes. I presume you will include the normal punctuation of the text in addition to any extra material you may need. (6) Many of these items are NOT objectively verifiable, and how such things are coded will vary from one researcher to another. The chances that a text marked up with these features would meet my needs is slim: even if I wanted such things marked, I would probably NOT like the way someone else had marked them. (7) doing work of critic; will it reliable? (8) If I were marking up etexts for my own analysis, I would certainly encode such features; however, given the subjective nature of most of these interpretations, I would be reluctant to endorse such markup as part of a minimal TEI standard. (10) Two versions should be held when possible; one with, the other without such information. (11) Conservative treatment preferred, with full account of decisions (13) Images, allusions, espec. indications of foreign languages , geographical locations--these need to be coded. (16) Most of these I consider my domain of research, but would of course be interested in evaluating & perhaps using the results of others. I would find the narrative discourse attributions extremely useful (e.g., 1st, 2nd, 3rd person). (19) Too much dependent on interpretation. (20) All these categories are potentially very useful, but once again would belong in a companion encoding. (24) Some odd bed fellows here. (26) If identified, this annotation can be of extraordinary value. (28) I would like to be able to tag/distinguish: - narrative vs. exposition (and all the other distinctions suggested by Barthes in L'analyse structurale du re/cit) - direct and indirect discourse; point of view - themes, images, topics - division of text into scenic/narrative structural units (e.g. Propp's and competing analyses of tale structure) Divergent analyses must be allowed. (31) FOR MOST OF THIS STUFF, THE CODING WOULD BETOO SUBJECTIVE (34) Probably too contentious to systematize comprehensively, and (for example) a merely partial (or flawed) identification of themes or imagery can actively mislead. (35) This kind of interjection is to be avoided at all costs. The text should remain as clear and simple as it can be. (36) Ditto. Any coding should work to loosen the web of the text and encourage its multivalence to be exploited in a non-print medium. Exciting potential here, I'd have thought. How can coding facilitate the exposition of multiple levels of, say "point of view" or the complexity of "themes", without constricting them? Can coding be sufficiently sensitive to maximize the examination of tensions between, say, overt levels of meaning, and, perhaps covert or subverted/-sive levels caused by dislocations within the varying "points of view" (authorially intended, historically and culturally conditioned, skewed by time, class, gender, race, etc. or the sheer slipperiness of the signifiers themselves) or between such semantic levels and accoustic/semiotic/paralinguistic levels? (38) Can this be optional - separate file. (39) This is a mixed bag. Such material should be put in by the researcher, as a rule, not the mark-up people. But direct vbs. indirect discourse vs. exposition (or whatever) can safely be marked up. As to the rest, let's have guidelines for how a commentator might make his electronic commentary TEI-observant, but keep notes on images, illusions, etc. out of standard E-texts. However where a quotation or paraphrase is from a known source, it should be tagged with a 'soruceof quatation' marker. Please Specify Important items in this category: (19) I prefer "clean" text without extraneous tags other than identifiers. (20) Direct and indirect discourse, images, point of view, allusions (24) Discourse levels (narrative, quoted speech, allusions) (34) Some uniformity in the conventions used to indicate direct speech MAY be desirable (or alternatively may actually be at odds with an author's own practice. F. In order to do my work as I prefer, I need generally accepted tags for the following aspects of texts (Please be as specific as possible. This is not a test but an opportunity to express your wishes. Please number your "wishes" and rank them in descending order of preference.): (1) 1. B 2. A 3. C (2) 1. Editorial annotations 2. Textual variants 3. Foreward and afterward material (author's prologue, translator's prologue, dedicatory, poems dedicated to the author, legal license, religious approbation, table of contents), rubrics, titles, running heads, etc. (3) 1. tags should be given at the start of subdivisions so that words, sentences, etc., can be identified by position (i.e., by page in a standard printed edition, or by act and scene in plays, or by title in a collection of short stories or essays). 2. If parallel variant text is given, it should not only be noted as such in a tag, but the tag should contain the length of the variant text so that a program can easily skip it in counts of the standard text. (4) 1. line number or chapter 2. language 3. part of speech, if included (5) 1. Page breaks 2. Italics 3. Foreign words 4. Quotes 5. Poetry 6. Parts of speech (6) 1. Bibliographical identification 2. Formal divisions (7) 1. accents 2. paragraph or other breaks 3. ligated letters (8) 1. Structural elements: act, scene, line for drama 2. Speaker designations and stage directions 3. Glosses for archaic or colloquial terms (as footnoted in many editions) 4. Explanations for references (explanatory footnotes) (9) 1.References (Book,chapter,line) BUT NOT SGML| 2.Quotations (citations in french) (10) 1. Speech prefixes (11) 1. Location-markers (e.g. page, line, act, scene) 2. Speaker-tags 3. Tags for major homographic cases (e.g. to/to, that/that/that) (12) 1. tags for placement, extent, and poss other info about illustrations 2. tags for hypertext and hypermedia (linking; filtering info 3. publishing history: ie, if form, say, chapoter divisions, changed since original or first publication, e.g. Dickens and other periodical authors then converted to book; this will be crucial when and if print texts becomes widely available in electronic and hypertext forms, which demand a different format. (13) 1. Proper names and places 2. indication of languages used in the text (14) 1. Formal Characteristics (16) 1. Lemma with disambiguation 2. Frequency (including totals and coefficients) 3. Pages of occurrence w/chapter divisions 4. Narrative point of view (1st, 2nd, 3rd person; singular or pl.) 5. Part of speech 6. Thematic affiliation(s) 7. Notations on errors in spelling, deletions, repetitions, etc. 8. Non-textual information (e.g., illustrations) (17) I prefer no tags at all and regard such as unwarranted editorial intervention. (18) 1. Stressed syllables (Accent) - word accent (e.g. gi'ving) and lexical accent in monosyllables (e.g. give) 2. End of syntactic phrase (19) 1. Divisions: Chapters, paragraphs, speakers (plays) 2. Spanish characters 3. Titles and sub-titles (21) 1. Act, Scene and line 2. Speaker 3. Part of speech, at least for homographs 4. Number of syllables in a line of verse (22) 1. Parts of speech 2. Speakers 3. Poetic or rhetorical devices (23) In order to make 'handy' concondances I want to know if a word in poetry is in a rhyming position. (24) 1. [will think about these further] (25) 1. formal characteristics listed above 2. textual variants 3. font information (26) 1. before tagging I require a verified text--most OTA texts I've used aren't 2. corresponding location(s) in standard edition(s) 3. textual variants in MSS versions, printed editions, comments 4. word and motif index, concordance, statistics, apparatus (27) 1. My views on this matter are emboided in Cheryl Fraser's thesis 2. (which I co-supervised). (28) 1. formal structure (I assume this is reasonably simple) 2. manuscript variations in the text 3. structural decomposition of text 4. simple linguistic analysis (part of speech, morphological info) 5. metrical information (number of syllables, placement of ictus, location of caesura, placement of linguistic stress) 6. identification of phrases as 'formula', 'formulaic' etc. (ideally by different tests) 7. manuscript abbreviations and their resolutions (29) 1.titles 2.authors 3.sub-titles (30) 1. Book 2. Chapter 3. Verse (31) 1. PRINT TEXT ID (LINE NUMBERS FOR POEMS, ACT AND SCENE FOR PLAYS 2. EDITION/SOURCE/VARIANT INFO (32) 1. Because I work with medieval texts, marking up a text for variations in orthography (lemmatizing) would be very handy 2. Unique mark-up strings for runic characters (thorn, eth, etc.) would enable me to do global search and replace to insert my own versions 3. I ususally search for vocabulary especially synonyms and sometimes antonyms. Standard tags to indicate vocabulary relationships would be useful if I wanted to share my marked-up text. 4. Tags for an editor's choice of type fonts and other typographical or manuscript features such as line breaks, rubrication, glosses, etc. (33) Since I'm more interested for my own work in the formal and structural aspects of texts, the current standard generally seems to cover the things I need right now. (34) 1. ACCENTED CHARACTERS 2. Parts of speech 3. Inflections (plurality, tense, etc) (35) 1. type faces and fonts 2. diacriticals (36) I'm engaged at the moment in trying to use the computer to tease out textual dynamics which cannot easily be expressed in linear form. I'm using an authoring package to investigate this and am intrigued by the possibilities for textual analysis and for teaching. Markup is effected not by inserting tags around the word/phrase/morpheme or whatever at the same physical 'level' of text, but by selecting (on Mac) the w/p/m etc and typing the coding into what might be seen as an underlying level. Many levels can be set up, allowing the word etc to be coded according to different features at different levels, or putting in alternatives at the same level + To take a simple example of the latter - the OE compound 'wintercearu' (lit. 'winter-sorrow) - where the 1st el. (surface level/conventional grammar - a noun), might be seen with varying degrees of validity with adverbial, adjectival AND/OR substantival function depending upon the relationships perceived between the two elements. Similarly, 'cearu' may be the surface grammatical subject of the clause, but at a deeper grammatical level may function as object or agent. All these glosses can be easily written in as alternative codes, and the combinations and permutations examined interactively within the wider context of the text. By coding these and many other features (rhythmical patterns, sound values, semantic resonances etc.) into set levels behind the words, and then revealing the coding at the different levels, one can get some sort of visual representation of the text's rhythmical pulses/alliterative patterns/ surface grammatical and semantic structures and the tensions between these and other levels of syntax and meaning/etc etc. This is very easy for the user - click/replace - and sympathetic to the way in which the mind works (not linear tags around, but levels behind and within the word). Indeed, the text can be seen to slip beteen levels on the screen. There's no way, however, in which such texts could be exchanged as they are entirely software/hardware dependent, and yet they are highly encoded. I just wonder whether more textual analysis won't be done using increasingly sophisticated '3-dimensional' approaches, with linear tagging very much the SECONDARY process - the result rather than the initial parameters. So my main interest is in the potential ease of interface between such programs and standard-coded linear text, and how readily TEI guidelines apply here. (37) 1. Metrical Information 2. Grammatical 3. Narrative vs. direct discourse (38) I don't quite understand but 1. genre 2. original language of authorship (39) 1. Clear and standard reference scheme to basic editins. 2. Elimination of 'typographical artefacts' (page-breaks, line-breaks, non-semantic hyphens, etc.). If they are included, they must be tagged so I can strip them out easily. 3. Speaker identity, change of speaker, quotation and indirect discourse. G. Futher suggestions to the Work Group on Literature Texts: (3) Lines should never be longer than 80 characters and they should always end with ASCII 13 and 10. (4) It would be nice to include translations as well as original works; perhaps reworking also. I would particularly like to see a machine readable version of Berni's *Rifacimento* of Boiardo's *Orlando Innamorato* so that I could compare them side by side, for example. (12) Mostly matters that obviously follow from my last sugegstion. (16) Providing information with tagged text on corpora which include said text would be very useful. (18) Compile a library of "prosodic-phonological dictionaries" and/or sets of algorithms to generate prosodic-phonemic transcriptions from orthographic textx. (19) Work with foreign language professional organisations. Some have guidelines already in place (Spanish). (21) I need a program to transcribe verse into IPA symbole and to perform metrical analysis. (24) I assume it is OK to forward the questionnaire to as many likely literary types as I can think of. There seem to be quite a lot of very familiar email addresses in the current list! (25) Minimally tagged texts are better than no texts at all. (29) Tags are essential for proper retrieval of information, apart from analysis of text. (36) [This is more concerned with the sort of editions it would be nice to have in electronic archives]. For medieval literature where oral delivery and non-author controlled dissemination are particularly at odds with the medium of print and authorial/editorial control, and where punctuation is imposed by the editor, it would be good to have tagging which brings out the fluidity inherent in such text. If an edition is being prepared, the editor, who will have deeply pondered textual cruces, alternative punctuation etc, could tag the choices which will be used in the printed version, but leave the options embedded within the electronic text ++ E.G. If an editor were editing an Old English text, using, say, a package combining the nesting facilities as above with good standard editing facilities (which must be the next development), then, when deciding how to punctuate the text, they might put in punctuation choices as flexibly as possible at positions of ambiguity (in an either/or/or.. facility). To evolve towards a final version for printing they could then click the one preferred in each case. In which case the other choices disappear from the surface version, which is fossilized in printed form, but remain underneath. If an interface could transfer the texts, with their underlying coding, to a standard format, then a version of the text could exist from which an infinite no. of slightly different versions/interpretation could be readily generated - one physical coded text/several possible output forms. The academic community would gain a dynamic text which would be so much MORE than the static printed version. We could benefit from the editor's particular expertise and insights, recovering some of the things that usually end up in the bin. (Printed version 100% manifest, all choices which were rejected 0% represented - even if the decision between alternatives was 51/49). Will an editor do this if this coding is a time-consuming (post-event) phase, rather than integral to the process of developing the text for publication? It seems to me that the very medium of electronic text prompts new insights and approaches, and this is more exciting than electronic text merely as conventional print-based text in another medium. How can the academic community benefit from the fruits of the labours of those who are not algorithm-proficient in these respects? - i.e. the importance of the interface again. II. The Current Version of the Standards (TEI P1.1) I would propose the following modifications to make them more appropriate to the needs of scholars of literature (Please list in descending order of preference): (2) 1. A summary section of preceptive instructions for different text types, i.e., a cook book with a set of rules with the minimally acceptable tag set for a particular kind of text. (3) See F and G above. (7) In general I find them far too cumbersome for my own use. I would never have accepted them for the Dartmouth Project had they existed back when we started. They would have cost us lots of time and money we do not have. Agsin, it isd a question of what text is being pre- pared for what user. I can see the need for TEI, but hope TEI can see that some of us, esp. those involved in free-standing data banks which do not distribute text will want our own simple-as-possible mark-up. (17) Less emphasis on tagging, editorial intervention, etc. and more attention to page and line references (absolutely necessary), page layout, etc. (20) 1. basic forms of words 2. textual subdividions 3. titles of subdivisions 4. speakers in plays 5. correspondants and dates in epistolary fiction (22) 1. Reproducing spacing if poetry on the page (24) 1. Give the editors each a fat cigar and a blonde 2. And three weeks holiday in Mauritius (28) 1. improved treatment of drama, poetry, prose fiction 2. more specialized treatment of special literary forms (e.g. particular genres of lyric) 3. treatment of literary analysis: narrative structure, themes, images, levels/types of discourse (33) 1. Although metrical indications are important, it strikes me as both simpler and more important to provide ways of encoding the stanzaic structure of poems: right now there are provisions for indicating stanza breaks, indentation, and rhyme, but no way to indicate a pattern that combines these and is uniform throughout a poem. 2. The encoding for dramatic texts looks like it's on the right track; but it needs fuller examples, and either an illustration or a rethinking of ---I don't see the reason for doing this as an empty element, rather than as a structural element within a line. (37) 1. I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with the standards. 2. I wonder if there is a way to hide codes one doesn't need when 3. working with a text. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 08:27:11 MST Reply-To: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list Sender: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list From: Dan Brink PLEASE "POST" Registering for ACH/ALLC '91: "MAKING CONNECTIONS" Dear Colleague: I invite you to Tempe, Arizona, to attend ACH/ALLC '91, the international conference that brings together members of the Association for Humanities Computing and the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing, March 17-21, 1991. March in Arizona is the "high" tourist season, so PLEASE take note of the deadlines listed in the accompanying material. The various discounts I have arranged require that arrangements be finalized well in advance. Once the blocks of rooms I have reserved in the ASU dormitories and local hotels are fully booked, you will have to pay substantially higher regular rates. It may even be difficult to secure accommodations at all! You MUST register for the conference in order to stay in the dormitories or to get the conference rate at the hotels. Please register, book your lodging and tour preferences, and reserve a place at the banquet immediately. Registration for the conference, dormitory lodging, and the banquet, tours, and workshop can be done by check in US dollars; or by VISA, Mastercard, or American Express. Please use the registration form included with this mailing. The dress code for this conference is casual. Hiking and walking shoes are suitable for all occasions. Bring bathing suits and sunblock if you want to swim, sunbathe, or play tennis or golf. Although the weather is summery in Phoenix in March, if you plan to go with us to the Grand Canyon after the conference, you need to allow for cold weather. Snow can still fall in the Rockies in March. I look forward to welcoming you to Arizona this March. Best regards, Daniel T. Brink Humanities Computing Facility Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287-0302 tel 602/965-2679 fax 602/965-2012 P.S. Since there is a fee reduction for ACH and ALLC members, you might want to take this opportunity to become a member of one or the other organization in the process of registering for the conference: for ACH, contact Joe Rudman at RUDMAN@CMPHYS.BITNET; for ALLC, contact Thomas Corns at ELS009@VAXA.BANGOR.AC.UK ============================================================= ACH/ALLC '91 Conference Overview Saturday, 16 March 5:30 PM Optional Pre-conference Cook-Out Sunday, 17 March 9:00 AM Optional Pre-conference Valley Bus Tour OR TEI Workshop 4:00 PM Opening Reception, Keynote Address by Martin Kay, and Optional Banquet Monday, 18 March 8:30 AM Full day of conference sessions, concluding with plenary presentation by Ralph Griswold Tuesday, 19 March 8:30 AM Half day of conference session, early afternoon free for visit to vendor exhibit at the Memorial Union, late afternoon free for Software Fair Wednesday, 20 March 8:30 AM Full day of conference sessions, concluding with plenary presentation by Helen Aguerra Thursday, 21 March 9:00 AM Half day of conference sessions 12:30 PM Concluding session, followed by box lunch 1:30 PM Optional Post-conference overnight tour to Sedona, Grand Canyon, Painted Desert and Navaho Reservation, returning to Phoenix airport on Friday, 22 March at 5:00 PM In addition to the pre- and post-conference activities and keynote and plenary sessions listed above, the conference will feature over 70 academic papers by scholars from 19 countries on topics covering all aspects of computing in humanistic scholarship, a variety of special sessions sponsored by groups such as the Association for Computational Linguistics and the American Philosophical Association, a vendor exhibit area with over 100 presenters, a hands-on software fair, an official status report on the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI), and an independent evaluation and assessment of the TEI. ================================================ Conference Fees 1. REGISTRATION Registration includes: access to all sessions, the commercial exhibit area and the software fair, plus the opening reception, intersession refreshments, and the wind-up lunch: Regular Registration (Due Feb 12): $75* ACH and ALLC members (Due Feb 12): 60* Graduate Students, Independent Scholars: 30* Spouses, other companions (each): 10 Late Registration Penalty (after Feb 12): 15 * Cancellation Penalty (after March 1): $15 2. BANQUET The banquet will be held at the Sheraton Tempe Mission Palms Hotel on the evening of March 17th, following the keynote address. The cost is $35.00/person, which includes wine and entertainment. Entrees include Filet Mignon and Breast of Chicken (Hunter Style), Lemon Herbed Breast of Chicken, and Vegetarian. Banquet, per person: $35 3. CONFERENCE AIRLINE TWA offers 45% off the unrestricted Coach (Y) fare and 5% discount off Excursion fares meeting all restrictions. Valid for March 14-25, 1991. Toll free telephone number Mon-Fri in U.S. 7:15 AM - 7:00 PM CST (800) 325-4933, request ACH/ALLC rate. 4. LODGING Sonora Center: ASU Dormitory Accommodations 401 E. Adelphi Drive, Tempe (South of Apache on Macalister) LIMITED OCCUPANCY; FIRST COME FIRST SERVED! Housing in ASU dormitories will be available from 16 March up to and including 20 March with checkout on the morning of Thursday, 21 March. Reservations can only be confirmed upon full advance payment by check in US dollars, or by VISA, Mastercard, or American Express, by 12 February 1991. I must pay the dormitories for your rooms before you arrive. You must apply for dormitory access through me. One set of linen (towels and sheets) will be provided for your stay. No rooms have private baths; however, each floor has complete, separate facilities for men and women. Access to swimming, tennis, and exercise facilities at a small fee. (Bring your own equipment [and combination lock] if you intend to use athletic facilities.) Rate - $24.00 per person per day, single occupancy; $12.00 per person per day, double occupancy (I strongly urge you to accept double occupancy, so that we can get more people into these excellent accommodations; we can coordinate suitable roommates, if you do not know anyone attending the conference). RESERVATIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING CONFERENCE HOTEL ROOMS MUST BE MADE DIRECTLY WITH THE HOTEL: Howard Johnson's 25 E. Apache Blvd, Tempe, 85281 (602) 967-9431 unlimited local phone complimentary airport shuttle private bath; 2 beds in every room very convenient, but somewhat run down $47.24 per room per night (plus 9.1% Tempe tax) Note: Up to four may share a room at the $47 rate; there is a $10 fee for a roll-away bed Holiday Inn 915 E. Apache, Tempe, 85281 (602) 968-3451 newly redecorated complimentary airport shuttle across the street from the Sonora Center dormitory $77 per single per night (plus 9.1% Tempe tax); 85 per double per night (plus 9.1% Tempe tax) 5. TOURS Saturday, 16 March, 5:30 PM - 11:00 PM. Authentic western covered wagon ride and desert cook-out on Indian reservation. This is a truly enjoyable experience, and is strongly recommended, especially for visitors with few other opportunities to visit the American West. $34.00 Sunday, 17 March, 9:00 AM - 1:00 PM. Valley Bus Tour: a four- hour tour of the "Valley of the Sun," including downtown Phoenix, the Wrigley Mansion/Biltmore area, Frank Lloyd Wright's Taliesen West, and panoramic valley views. $19.00 Thursday, 21 March 1:30 PM - Friday, 22 March 5:00 PM. Narrated overnight bus tour to Sedona/Oak Creek, Grand Canyon, Navaho Reservation, Painted Desert. Tour concludes at Sky Harbor Airport. $109.00 per person, double occupancy. $119.00 per person, single occupancy. Meals are not included. 6. TEI Workshop Sunday, 17 March, 9:00 AM. TEI Workshop: a 2-hour basic introduction to the Text Encoding Initiative, followed at noon by a 3-hour TEI hands-on training session. Michael Sperberg-McQueen and Lou Burnard. $19.00 (for one or both) ===================================================== Registration Form for ACH/ALLC '91: (You may download this electronic form and MAIL to: Daniel Brink Humanities Computing Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287-0302 Since payment must accompany registration, there will be NO electronic registration (although you may use fax: 602/965-2012): check (U.S. $ only) [Humanities Computing Facility], or charge (VISA, Mastercard, American Express) ======================================= name: ___________________ phone: __________________ address: ________________ fax: ___________________ ________________ e-mail: ________________ ________________ 1. Regular Registration: $75* _____ ACH and ALLC member: 60* _____ Student, Independent: 30* _____ Non-participating companion: 10 _____ Late Registration (after Feb 12): 15 _____ subtotal, registration: _____ * Cancellation Penalty (after March 1): $15 2. Banquet: number of persons: _____ x $35 _____ meal choice(s): ___Filet Mignon ___Chicken ___ Vegetarian 3. Airfare (do not pay to HCF; deal directly with TWA [see above] or your airline) 4. Lodging (in ASU Dormitory; for hotels, deal direct [see above]) per person, 2 per room: $12.00; single occupancy: $24.00. Indicate any directly-made roommate preference below (be sure they do the same!); indicate only yourself in calculating fees (unless you are including your spouse): _______________________ dates: 16 March ___ persons x rate: ($12 or $24) _____ 17 March ___ persons x rate: ($12 or $24) _____ 18 March ___ persons x rate: ($12 or $24) _____ 19 March ___ persons x rate: ($12 or $24) _____ 20 March ___ persons x rate: ($12 or $24) _____ subtotal, dormitory: _____ 5. tours: Mar 16: Wagon/Cookout: ___ persons x $34 _____ Mar 17: Valley Tour: ___ persons x $19 _____ Mar 21/22: Grand Canyon: ___ persons x ($109/119) ___ subtotal, tours: _____ 6. TEI workshop: ___ persons x $19 ____ subtotal, workshop: _____ (morning ____ afternoon _____ both ____) Grand Total: _____ You may charge the Grand Total amount by filling in the information below: type of card: ______________________ name on card: ______________________ account #: _________________________ expiration date: ___________________ signature: _________________________ P.S.: If you have special needs or require additional information, please contact Dan Brink at ATDXB@ASUACAD.BITNET Daniel Brink, Associate Dean for Technology Integration College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1701 602/965-7748/1441 fax -1093 ATDXB@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 09:17:25 EST Reply-To: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list Sender: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was From: Elli Mylonas Subject: tagging question I am tagging some texts that contain collections of fragments. The fragments are grouped according to various categories, and within each category, may be divided into speeches. (these are fragments of the Attic Orators) Each "speech" has a title, and may have 0 or more numbered fragments. ex: A. Dicanic Speeches(These examples are made up...) 1. Against Leocrates 1. 2. 2. Against Someone Else 3. 4. <...> 3. [Against] another poor soul this one has no fragment, just a note on the source of this possible title (note the brackets in the title). Usually we know titles from later juridical writers. The problem is that different orators, because they had different (usually German) 19th century editors, have different ways of canonically numbering the fragments and their categories. So, I can never assume the number of levels of heading that will lead me down to the speech titles and/or to the fragment numbers. Because there is also inevitably a group of unattributed fragments at the end whose original speech is unknown. My question is as follows: is it better to create a set of numbered headings and to make them optional? So that a collection of fragments that does not have detailed heads and subheads will only have H1 headings, followed by the actual fragment (i am not describing the fragment element in all its complexity...) or is it better to have nesting H tags, with no indication of level? note that 1) the allowed numbers for the type of heading are listed out explicitly, since we don't want a header 35 for ex. This attribute is not necessary, but might satisfy people who *need* to have the level explicit. the contents attribute is also not necessary, the contents can be part of the contents of the element. I rather like the second suggestion, since it allows me to handle any number of headings for the fragments. Also, it acknowledges the fact that the categories are rather arbitrary. Any comments? btw, the same problem applies to the fragments of lyric, elegiac and epic poetry. There we have several layers of editor, starting with the Alexandrians, creating categories. --Elli Mylonas (Perseus Project, Department of the Classics, Harvard University) elli@ikaros.harvard.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 12:47:30 HNE Reply-To: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list Sender: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list From: Pierre Auger Subject: CIPL92 call for papers PLEASE POST XVe Congres international des linguistes Quebec, Canada, 9-14 aout 1992 Organise par l'Universite Laval avec le concours de l'Association canadienne de linguistique (ACL) et sous les auspices du Comite international permanent des linguistes (CIPL) 1ere circulaire Renseignements generaux General information 1st circular XVth International Congress of Linguists Quebec City, Canada, August 9-14, 1992 Organized by Laval University in collaboration with the Canadian Linguistic Association (CLA) Under the auspices of the Permanent International Committee of Linguists (PICL) CIL92 Departement de Langues et Linguistique Universite Laval Quebec City, (Que.), G1K 7P4, CANADA Telephone: (418) 656-5323 FAX: (418) 656-2019 E-Mail: CIPL92@LAVALVM1.BITNET ANNOUNCEMENT XVth International Congress of Linguists Organized by Laval University in collaboration with the Canadian Linguistic Association (CLA) Under the auspices of the Permanent International Committee of Linguists (PICL) Quebec City, August 9-14, 1992 General theme of the Congress: "The Survival of Endangered Languages" Honorary President: Michel Gervais Rector of Laval University Organizing Committee: President: Pierre Auger Department of Languages and Linguistics Laval University Vice-President: Walter Hirtle Department of Languages and Linguistics Laval University General Secretary: Silvia Faitelson-Weiser Department of Languages and Linguistics Laval University Program: Marie Surridge Past President of the CLA, Department of French Studies Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario Local Arrangements: Jean-Louis Tremblay Department of Languages and Linguistics Laval University Publication: Conrad Ouellon Director of CIRAL Department of Languages and Linguistics Laval University GENERAL INFORMATION DATE AND LOCATION: August 9-14, 1992, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada ACCOMMODATION: Hotels in all price ranges and limited accomodation in university residences halls. For information on accommodation, contact the official tourist bureau of CIL92, using the providing form: Office du tourisme et des congres de la Communaute urbaine de Quebec 399, East St-Joseph Street Quebec, (Que.), CANADA, G1K 8E2 Telephone: (418) 522-3511 PASSPORTS AND VISAS: All visitors to Canada, except residents of the United States, are required to have a valid passport. Citizens of some countries are also required to have a visa. All enquiries should be addressed to the closest Canadian embassy, consulate or high commission. REGISTRATION FEES: Participants Accompanying Students* Guests Before 91/03/01: $150 (U.S.) $75 (U.S.) $150(U.S.) $175(CAN) $100(CAN.) $175(CAN.) From 91/05/01 to 92/02/28: $200 (U.S.) $100 (U.S.) $150(U.S.) $235(CAN.) $125(CAN.) $175(CAN.) From 92/03/01 to 92/08/09: $250 (U.S.) $125(U.S.) $150(U.S.) $300 (CAN.) $150(CAN.) $175(CAN.) Congress fees may be paid by cheque to CIL92 or by credit card (American Express, Master Card and Visa). In the event of a cancellation, part of the registration fee will be refunded (75% before February 28, 1992, 50% from March 1, 1992 to May 31, 1992). There will be no reimbursement for cancellations received at the Congress office after May 31, 1992. However, the persons concerned will be sent Congress registration packets. * Only participants with an official letter from their universities certifying their student status will pay the student registration fee. PROGRAM: Days Activities Sunday, August 9 Registration Reception Monday, August 10 Opening ceremony Plenary session Oral presentations Poster sessions Panel discussions Tuesday, August 11 Plenary session Oral presentations Poster sessions Panel discussions Wednesday, August 12 Excursions Thursday, August 13 Plenary session Oral presentations Poster sessions Panel discussions Friday, August 14 Plenary session Oral discussions Poster sessions Panel discussions Closing ceremony OFFICIAL LANGUAGES: The languages of the Congress will be Canada's two official languages, French and English. PLENARY SESSIONS: As is customary, the topic of each plenary session will be introduced by three or more speakers. This will be followed by a general discussion. The topics of these sessions are: 1. Semantics, syntax, pragmatics 2. The word 3. Endangered languages 4. Theoretical approaches to language: the state of the art and prospects for the future PAPERS: Conference papers may take the form of oral presentations or poster sessions. Oral presentations are scheduled to last twenty minutes, including a five-minute question period. Participants choosing the poster session will be allowed two hours. The schedule of papers will be announced in the third circular. The following is a provisional list of section topics: 1.Sounds, phonemes and intonation 2.The word (morphology, lexicology, lexicography, terminology) 3.The sentence (syntax, function, etc.) 4.Meaning (semantics, lexical meaning, grammatical meaning, etc.) 5.Spoken or written text (pragmatics, discourse analysis, etc.) 6.Language and society (sociolinguistics, linguistic variation, language and culture, etc.) 7.Language and the individual (psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics, language acquisition and learning, etc.) 8.The history of language 9.Language planning 10.Survival of endangered languages 11.Theories of language 12.Language and the computer 13.Pidgins and creoles 14.Methodology (data observation, corpus gathering and processing, experimentation) 15. Other (language and women, sign language, the history of linguistics, etc.) Participants wishing to present a paper will be requested to send an abstract before October 1, 1991. See the 2nd circular (May 1991) for details. PANEL DISCUSSIONS: The Organizing Committee invites participants to propose topics for panel discussions by April 1, 1991. Participants whose topic is chosen will be responsible for organizing their panel discussion. PRE-REGISTRATION: The second circular will be sent to those who complete the enclosed pre-registration form. INFORMATION: CIL92 Pierre Auger Departement de Langues et Linguistique Universite Laval Quebec City, (Que.) G1K 7P4, CANADA Telephone: (418) 656-5323 FAX: (418) 656-2019 E-Mail: CIPL92@LAVALVM1 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ANNONCE XVe Congres international des linguistes Organise par l'Universite Laval avec le concours de l'Association canadienne de linguistique (ACL) et sous les auspices du Comite international des linguistes (CIPL) Quebec, 9 au 14 aout 1992 Theme principal du Congres: "La survie des langues menacees" President d'honneur: M. Michel Gervais recteur de l'Universite Laval Comite d'organisation President: M. Pierre Auger Departement de langues et linguistique Universite Laval Vice-president: M. Walter Hirtle Departement de langues et linguistique Universite Laval Secretaire-generale:Mme Silvia Faitelson-Weiser Departement de langues et linguistique Universite Laval Programme: Mme Marie Surridge presidente sortante de l'ACL Departement d'Etudes Francaises Universite Queen, Kingston, Ontario Accueil: M. Jean-Louis Tremblay Departement de langues et linguistique Universite Laval Publications: M. Conrad Ouellon Directeur du CIRAL Departement de langues et linguistique Universite Laval RENSEIGNEMENTS GENERAUX DATE ET LIEU DU CONGRES: 9 au 14 aout 1992, Universite Laval, Quebec, Canada HEBERGEMENT: Hotels de differentes categories et nombre reduit de logement economique dans les residences de l'Universite Laval. Toutes les demandes concernant l'hebergement doivent etre acheminees a : Office du tourisme et des congres de la Communaute urbaine de Quebec 399, Rue Saint-Joseph Quebec, (Que.), CANADA, G1K 8E2 Telephone: (418) 522-3511 PASSEPORTS ET VISAS:Tous les visiteurs entrant au Canada, sauf les residents des Etats-Unis, doivent etre en possession d'un passeport valide. Pour les ressortissants de certains pays, un visa est egalement requis. Chacun des participants est encourage a consulter l'ambassade, le consulat ou le haut-commissariat canadien le plus pres, pour verifier les conditions qui s'appliquent a leur situation. FRAIS D'INSCRIPTION: Congressistes Accompagnants Etudiants* Avant 91/03/01: 150$(U.S) 75$(U.S) 150$(U.S) 175$(CAN.) 100$(CAN.) 175$(CAN.) Du 91/05/01 au 200$(U.S.) 100$(U.S) 150$(U.S.) 92/02/28: 235$(CAN.) 125$(CAN.) 175$(CAN.) Du 92/03/01 au 250$(U.S.) 125$(U.S.) 150$(U.S.) 92/08/09: 300$(CAN.) 150$(CAN.) 175$(CAN.) Les frais d'inscription peuvent etre payes par cheque, a l'ordre de CIL92, ou par cartes de credit (American Express, Master Card ou Visa). En cas d'annulation, une partie des frais des inscriptions sera remboursee, soit 75% avant le 28 fevrier 1992, 50% du 1er mars au 31 mai 1992. Les annulations effectuees apres le 31 mai 1992 ne seront pas remboursees, cependant les personnes inscrites recevront tout le materiel distribue pour la tenue de ce congres. *Seuls les participants munis d'une lettre de leur universite attestant leur statut d'etudiant pourront beneficier du tarif etudiant. PROGRAMME Jours Activites Dimanche, 9 aout Inscription Soiree d'accueil Lundi, 10 aout Ceremonie d'ouverture Session pleniere Communications orales Communications par affiche Tables-rondes Mardi, 11 aout Session pleniere Communications orales Communications par affiche Tables-rondes Mercredi, 12 aout Journee libre, excursions Jeudi, 13 aout Session pleniere Communications orales Communications par affiche Tables-rondes Vendredi, 14 aout Session pleniere Communications orales Communications par affiche Tables-rondes Ceremonie de cloture LANGUES DU CONGRES: Les deux langues du Congres seront les langues officielles du Canada, soit le francais et l'anglais. SESSIONS PLENIERES: Selon l'usage, le sujet de chaque session pleniere sera presente par trois conferenciers ou plus. Une discussion generale suivra. Les sujets de ces sessions seront les suivants: 1.Semantique, syntaxe, pragmatique 2.Le mot 3.Les langues menacees 4.Les approches theoriques: le present et l'avenir COMMUNICATIONS: Des communications orales ou des communications par affiche seront acceptees. Le temps alloue pour une communication orale et la discussion qui suit est de vingt minutes. L'auteur d'une communication par affiche beneficiera d'une periode de deux heures pour presenter sa communication. L'horaire des communications figurera dans la troisieme circulaire. La liste provisoire des sujets retenus pour les sections est la suivante: 1. Les sons, les phonemes et l'intonation 2. Le mot (morphologie, lexicologie, lexicographie, terminologie, etc.) 3. La phrase (syntaxe, fonction, etc.) 4. Le sens (semantique, signification lexicale, signification grammaticale, etc.) 5. Le texte parle ou ecrit (pragmatique, analyse de discours, etc.) 6. Langage et societe (sociolinguistique, variation linguistique, langue et culture,etc.) 7. La langue et l'individu (psycholinguistique, neurolinguistique, acquisition et apprentissage des langues) 8. La langue dans le temps 9. L'amenagement linguistique 10. La survie des langues menacees 11. Theorie du langage 12. Langage et informatique 13. Pidgins et creoles 14. Methodologie (observation des donnees,constitution et traitement de corpus, experimentation, etc.) 15. Autres (la langue et les femmes, le langage par signes, histoire de la linguistique, etc.) Les participants sont invites a proposer une communication dans une des sections ci-haut mentionnees. Ils devront faire parvenir un resume de leur communication avant le 1er octobre 1991 au bureau du Congres. Pour de plus amples renseignements, consultez la deuxieme circulaire disponible en mai 1991. TABLES-RONDES: Le Comite d'organisation invite les participants interesses a organiser une table-ronde a soumettre des propositions de sujets, et ceci avant le 1er avril 1991. Le participant dont le sujet sera accepte sera responsable de l'organisation de la table- ronde. PRE-INSCRIPTION: La deuxieme circulaire (mai 1991) sera expediee a ceux qui auront rempli le formulaire de pre-inscription ci-joint. Veuillez le retourner le plus tot possible. INFORMATION: CIL92 Pierre Auger Departement de langues et linguistique Universite Laval Quebec, (Que.) G1K 7P4, CANADA Telephone: (418) 656-5323 FAX: (418) 656-2019 E-mail: CIPL92@LAVALVM1.BITNET ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 15:49:26 MEZ Reply-To: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list Sender: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list From: SERTEL@DGOGWDG1.BITNET Subject: Re: PHONETIC TRANSCRIPTION In-Reply-To: Message of Mon, 14 Jan 91 08:44:00 PST from Hello dear colleague: quite a few people responded to my note on phonetic transcription. Don`t expect too much. But you may see yourself below what the program (TRAN) actually does. If you want to get it send a DOS-discette (5 1/4 or 3 1/2 inch) or else $ 2 for a discette (which size?). I would then copy it for you and return the discette. An international mailing coupon for the return mail ($ 3 ) would be appreciated (or else add $ 3 in the letter). My mailing address: Dr Suitbert Ertel Institut fr Psychologie Gosslerstrasse 14 D-3400 Gttingen Germany For my own purpose TRAN`s transcriptions are sufficient. I would like to get something similar for French. My respondents don`t (yet) seem to know of such software. If you comme across such a tool, please, let me know. Best wishes Suitbert ----------------------------------------------------------------------- See usage rules: TRAN ? Basic translation comand, e.g. : TRAN -s +p infile.ext Translation saved as ASCII-file : TRAN -s +p infile.ext > outfile.ext ----------------------------------------------------------------------- TRAN` phonetic translation rules (N= 321) applied by TRAN may be transferred to, e.g., rules.txt by: TRAN +R > rules.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- TRAN is not available to me in source code. New or modifying rules apparently cannot be built in. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Example of phonetic translation by TRAN.exe ------------------------------------------- This utility is a global delete TH-IH-S- Y-OO-T-IH-L-IH-T-EE- IH-Z- UH- G-L-AH-B-UH-L- D-IH-L-EE-T- program which works across all sub- P-R-AH-G-R-AE-M- WH-IH-CH- W-ER-K-S- AE-K-R-AW-S- AW-L- S-UH-B- directories D-IH-R-EH-K-T-AW-R-EE-Z- on a hard disk. The format for AH-N- UH- H-AH-R-D- D-IH-S-K- TH-UH- F-AW-R-M-AE-T- F-AW-R- usage is SCLEAN filename extension Y-OO-Z-IH-J- IH-Z- S-K-L-EE-N- F-IH-L-EH-N-AE-M- EH-K-S-T-EH-N-SH-UH-N- all wildcards are AW-L- W-I-L-D-K-AH-R-D-Z- AH-R- valid. At each occurrence of the files V-EY-L-IH-D- AE-T- EE-CH- AH-K-K-ER-R-EH-N-S- UH-V- TH-UH- F-I-L-Z- being sought, the program asks if you B-EE-IH-NG- S-AH-T- TH-UH- P-R-AH-G-R-AE-M- AE-S-K-S- IH-F- Y-OO- want to delete it or not. W-AE-N-T- T-OO- D-IH-L-EE-T- IH-T- AW-R- N-AH-T- Especially handy if your word EH-S-P-EH-SH-UH-L-EE- H-AE-N-D-EE- IH-F- Y-OO-R- W-ER-D- processor creates backup-files as many do. P-R-OH-S-EH-S-ER- K-R-EE-T-S- B-AE-K-UH-P- F-I-L-Z- AE-Z- M-EH-N-EE- D-OO-  ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 14:42:25 EST Reply-To: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list Sender: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list From: Derick Wood Subject: I am away at the SODA conference in San Francisco. I will be back late Wednesday night (Jan 30th). Please be patient, I will respond then. derick wood ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 17:11:38 CST Reply-To: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list Sender: Text Encoding Initiative public discussion list Comments: "ACH / ACL / ALLC Text Encoding Initiative" From: Michael Sperberg-McQueen 312 996-2477 -2981 Subject: elli mylonas's query - speaking as a user (sound of removing editor's green eye-shade) Elli Mylonas poses a nice clean question. My first reaction, speaking as a user, is that either approach is defensible, and neither will get you into real deep trouble, beyond the obvious ones that EM's sample DTD fragments need spaces between their tag-omissibility hyphens and a plus or two at strategic points, thus: and The latter has, as EM points out, the advantage of being nestable to arbitrary depths; this is, as she also points out, also its major disadvantage, since one might wish to specify a maximum level. EM proposes a TYPE attribute to do this; that's the main argument against EM's second formulation as it stands, since the attribute is (a) redundant, since an application should be able to keep track of nesting, and (b) possibly problematic, since it's hard to say what should be done if the user specifies type=1 when actually the heading is four levels down. If you want explicit specification of the level (and you may, for implementation reasons), I would certainly go with the first formulation, since it allows the explicit specification to be validated. The second formulation has the virtue of economy; it applies Occam's Razor. But it would be hard to process the way one usually wants to. I at least don't know any software that will track heading level and provide different processing depending on level, except with a lot of user work. For what it's worth, that's the major reason (as I understand it) that the TR committee of the TEI chose to leave Occam's razor unapplied in this one area, and let the level be specified explicitly in the tag name. Michael Sperberg-McQueen