Discussion:
TEI by example: CALL FOR EXAMPLES
(too old to reply)
TEI by example
2006-12-13 08:38:43 UTC
Permalink
[apologies for cross-posting]

The Centre for Scholarly Editing and Document Studies (CTB)
<http://www.kantl.be/ctb/> of the Royal Academy of Dutch Language and
Literature, the Centre for Computing in the Humanities (CCH)
<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/> of King's College London, and the
School for Library, Archive, and Information Studies (SLAIS)
<http://www.slais.ucl.ac.uk/> of University College London, are involved
in the joint project "TEI by Example".

Featuring freely available online tutorials walking individuals through
the different stages in marking up a document in TEI (Text Encoding
Initiative <http://www.tei-c.org>), these online tutorials will provide
examples for users of all levels. Examples will be provided of different
document types, with varying degrees in the granularity of markup, to
provide a useful teaching and reference aid for those involved in the
marking up of texts.

Eight tutorial modules will address a wide range of issues in text
encoding with TEI:
1. Introduction to text encoding with TEI
2. The TEI header
3. Prose
4. Poetry
5. Drama
6. Manuscript Transcription
7. Scholarly Editing
8. Customizing TEI, ODD, Roma

To build as much as possible on available sources of existing practice
in the field and to be able to present a broad view on the wide variety
of encoding practices, we warmly welcome you to contribute TEI-encoded
examples (either fragments or complete texts) that are applicable to any
of these subjects. Examples are preferably encoded as TEI P5 XML texts,
but also texts encoded in TEI P4 XML, other XML formats, or other
(documented) electronic formats are of interest. Even examples of
less-ideal encoding practices are welcome, since the idea of learning by
error is a valuable didactic principle. Please do provide some
indication of the errors or controversies in such examples when
appropriate. After selection and editing, the example fragments will be
incorporated in the freely available online deliverables, which will be
issued under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No
Derivatives licence (see
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/>). All contributors
will be credited.

The examples can be sent (preferably compressed in .zip format and with
an indication of applicability and credits due) to
***@kantl.be. Please do not hesitate to contact us for any
inquiries regarding copyright issues or any more general issues.

Kind regards,

The project team:

Ron Van den Branden,
Melissa Terras,
Edward Vanhoutte
Sebastian Rahtz
2006-12-13 09:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by TEI by example
After selection and editing, the example fragments will be
incorporated in the freely available online deliverables, which will be
issued under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No
Derivatives licence
Can I _plead_ with you not to go down this route.

By putting the "Non-commercial" clause in, you remove a whole
slew of uses, and alienate both the commercial
world and the open source world, for very little benefit.

TEI training is not an area where there is proper money
to be made, nor do I imagine that CTB, KCL or SLAIS
have any plans to make alternative commercial
versions. If some small company does pick up
TEI by Example and uses it in courses, this
is surely a good thing, not a bad thing? If I write
a TEI book and use TEI by Example in it, or
put the material on a CD with the book, wouldn't
that again be a Good Thing? The wider use
your materials get the better, I think, and that is
surely the intention of your funders.

Using the simpler CC "Sharealike" license would ensure
that your work was not abused, and this is
obviously your prime intention.

The "non-commercial" bit of CC is great
for when you genuinely think that there
is money to be made, and you don't want
someone else doing it because you plan
to do so yourself. If that is the future
strategy of tei-by-example, then obviously
I have no complaints. But if not, please
avoid this vile concept!

I have to say that I personally
will not contribute material to
the project unless it is under
an open source licence (which
includes CC sharealike).

Sebastian (speaking purely for himself, not for Oxford)
James Cummings
2006-12-13 10:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sebastian Rahtz
Post by TEI by example
After selection and editing, the example fragments will be
incorporated in the freely available online deliverables, which will be
issued under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No
Derivatives licence
Can I _plead_ with you not to go down this route.
By putting the "Non-commercial" clause in, you remove a whole
slew of uses, and alienate both the commercial
world and the open source world, for very little benefit.
<snip/>
Post by Sebastian Rahtz
Using the simpler CC "Sharealike" license would ensure
that your work was not abused, and this is
obviously your prime intention.
<snip/>

I'm not as bothered by the Non-Commercial bit as Sebastian, but certainly agree
with the points that he makes. What worries me more is the 'No Derivatives'
module of the licence. Surely we *want* people to take these examples and use
them in their teaching and various educational materials? In fact, it would be
good to encourage them to do so. I'd agree with Sebastian that CC+by+sa is
probably enough and more conducive to use and re-use, which I assume we would
want to encourage.
Post by Sebastian Rahtz
Sebastian (speaking purely for himself, not for Oxford)
Yeah, same here.

-James
--
Dr James Cummings, Oxford Text Archive, University of Oxford
James dot Cummings at oucs dot ox dot ac dot uk
Roberto Rosselli Del Turco
2006-12-13 15:34:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Cummings
I'm not as bothered by the Non-Commercial bit as Sebastian, but certainly agree
with the points that he makes. What worries me more is the 'No Derivatives'
module of the licence. Surely we *want* people to take these examples and use
them in their teaching and various educational materials? In fact, it would be
good to encourage them to do so. I'd agree with Sebastian that CC+by+sa is
probably enough and more conducive to use and re-use, which I assume we would
want to encourage.
I agree with both Sebastian and James: why 'No Derivatives'? this way
you risk to make this otherwise laudable initiative less attractive to
potential contributors (who might be interested to modify and re-use
themselves the final product).

Ciao
--
Roberto Rosselli Del Turco roberto.rossellidelturco at unito.it
Dipartimento di Scienze rosselli at ling.unipi.it
del Linguaggio Then spoke the thunder DA
Universita' di Torino Datta: what have we given? (TSE)

Hige sceal the heardra, heorte the cenre,
mod sceal the mare, the ure maegen litlath. (Maldon 312-3)
Gabriel BODARD
2006-12-13 16:13:37 UTC
Permalink
It does depend somewhat on the re-use one envisages or desires for the
texts and/or snippets in question. The Inscriptions of Aphrodisias XML
files were initially made available under a CC by-nc-nd license, until
it was pointed out to us that (a) the non-commercial clause would make
it impossible for certain large projects to re-use and redistribute our
files, because of their more permissive licensing policy, and the fact
that asking for permission to waive this clause was unfeasible on the
scale at which they work, and more importantly (b) derivative uses of
our texts is *precisely* what we want to encourage. Our texts are now
available under by-2.5 (http://insaph.kcl.ac.uk/ala2004/inscription/),
along with the EpiDoc DTD which is (legally) modified P4, under GPL.

This means, I suppose, that if you re-use these files you can release
them under a more restrictive license if you like, but you have to
include a link-back and users who want to do more with them can go back
to the source and use ours. Let me know if you'd like me to send you a
selection of slightly enhanced versions of these files.

Sebastian, if you release your XML files under a by-sa license before
you share them with teibyexample, wouldn't that oblige them to release
any derivations under an Open Source license?

G
--
Dr Gabriel BODARD

Inscriptions of Aphrodisias
Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
Kay House
7, Arundel Street
London WC2R 3DX
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=WC2R3DX

Email: ***@kcl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980
Sebastian Rahtz
2006-12-13 22:04:44 UTC
Permalink
Our texts are now available under by-2.5
(http://insaph.kcl.ac.uk/ala2004/inscription/), along with the EpiDoc
DTD which is (legally) modified P4, under GPL.
hurrah
This means, I suppose, that if you re-use these files you can release
them under a more restrictive license if you like, but you have to
include a link-back and users who want to do more with them can go
back to the source and use ours.
It's an interesting issue for the _tei by example_ folks about how they'll
mix and match material supplied under a variety of licences.
Sebastian, if you release your XML files under a by-sa license before
you share them with teibyexample, wouldn't that oblige them to release
any derivations under an Open Source license?
Yes, that would protect my interests. but then we come back to what
David Birnbaum said - I want to actively persuade other people
to work like me. It goes against my better instincts to contribute material
to a project only part of whose output I personally can make use of.
See, I take
this "no commercial" clause seriously. If someone pays me to teach a TEI
workshop (well, I can dream...), I won't be able to use modified subsets of
TEI by Example on that course.

There is another interesting topic raised by TEI by Example, which
is being prepared by a consortium of institutions, over who will actually
hold the IPR. Suppose all the contributors hold the IPR separately,
as would be the default, and simply agree on a CC-nc-nd licence; then
I come along and ask for a commercial licence - who do I negotiate with?
The option of the dual licence is realistically not on. The alternative,
whereby TEI by Example gets copyright assignments from any
contributors, would be a nightmare.

Sebastian
David J Birnbaum
2006-12-13 16:32:57 UTC
Permalink
Dear TEI-L,

I've always favored a non-commercial-only license for my own work
because that seemed to be the only leverage I had to say "I'd be
delighted to have you use my work to enhance yours, but it would be in
Bad Taste for you to take something for free while refusing to give
anything back, and I'm not willing to facilitate greed and selfishness."
In other words, I am trying to lead by example, and also to require
people to pay for the use of my work not with money, but with their own
Good Citizenship. I think of this reasoning as my modest contribution
toward creating the world in which I would like to live, but if it is
misguided, I'd be grateful for gentle correction.

Although the question of copyright and copyright alternatives is in some
sense ancillary (not irrelevant, but not central) to TEI concerns,
because the issue arose on this list in the context of the "TEI by
example" enterprise, I hope that it won't be considered too far off topic.

Best,

David
djbpitt+***@pitt.edu
Sebastian Rahtz
2006-12-13 16:57:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by David J Birnbaum
I've always favored a non-commercial-only license for my own work
because that seemed to be the only leverage I had to say "I'd be
delighted to have you use my work to enhance yours, but it would be in
Bad Taste for you to take something for free while refusing to give
anything back, and I'm not willing to facilitate greed and
selfishness." In other words, I am trying to lead by example, and also
to require people to pay for the use of my work not with money, but
with their own Good Citizenship. I think of this reasoning as my
modest contribution toward creating the world in which I would like to
live, but if it is misguided, I'd be grateful for gentle correction.
I applaud your sentiment entirely, but I think it is better served by
the CC sharealike license than a non-commercial. The sharealike says
"I'd be delighted to have you use my work to enhance yours. If you can make
money out of it, good for you; but I do insist that you carry on the
good work and make your
improvements as free to the world as mine were".

The CC-nocommercial license says "You can use my stuff and enhance it,
but only if you belong to
an ill-defined band of 'non-commercial' people (which I won't define but
You Know Who You Are);
so go ahead, make your academic reputation by building on my work, make
lecture tours, get your
promotion - but please don't make any actual cash. On other hand, if you
are a retired Eng Lit professor
making a few bob teaching markup to night classes _for money_ (heaven
forfend!), then gosh I want
a slice of your action."

Have I convinced you?

Sebastian



Sebastian
Martin Mueller
2006-12-13 17:38:53 UTC
Permalink
I"m with Sebastian on this. The differences between the commercial
and non-commercial world are real enough, but we should think in
terms of bridges rather than walls when negotiating those
differences, which, like the poor, will always be with us.
Post by Sebastian Rahtz
Post by David J Birnbaum
I've always favored a non-commercial-only license for my own work
because that seemed to be the only leverage I had to say "I'd be
delighted to have you use my work to enhance yours, but it would
be in Bad Taste for you to take something for free while refusing
to give anything back, and I'm not willing to facilitate greed and
selfishness." In other words, I am trying to lead by example, and
also to require people to pay for the use of my work not with
money, but with their own Good Citizenship. I think of this
reasoning as my modest contribution toward creating the world in
which I would like to live, but if it is misguided, I'd be
grateful for gentle correction.
I applaud your sentiment entirely, but I think it is better served
by the CC sharealike license than a non-commercial. The sharealike
says
"I'd be delighted to have you use my work to enhance yours. If you can make
money out of it, good for you; but I do insist that you carry on
the good work and make your
improvements as free to the world as mine were".
The CC-nocommercial license says "You can use my stuff and enhance
it, but only if you belong to
an ill-defined band of 'non-commercial' people (which I won't
define but You Know Who You Are);
so go ahead, make your academic reputation by building on my work,
make lecture tours, get your
promotion - but please don't make any actual cash. On other hand,
if you are a retired Eng Lit professor
making a few bob teaching markup to night classes _for money_
(heaven forfend!), then gosh I want
a slice of your action."
Have I convinced you?
Sebastian
Sebastian
David J Birnbaum
2006-12-13 22:10:14 UTC
Permalink
Dear TEI-L,
"I'd be delighted to have you use my work to enhance yours, but it
would be in Bad Taste for you to take something for free while
refusing to give anything back, and I'm not willing to facilitate
greed and selfishness."
This is exactly the effect of sharealike, though: setting an example
and forcing commercial people to share their stuff if they want to use
your stuff.
I'm not good at parsing legal documents, so when I read the official
sharealike documentation on line, I was not confident that I understood
what it meant. Can someone translate it into plain and concise language
for me? Does a sharealike license permit someone to use my stuff in a
commercial product (that is, a product that they will then sell)? If
not, have I been advocating sharealike all-along, but mistakenly calling
it "non-commercial," which the entire world understands differently than
I do?
Noncommercial sends a different message: "I assume everybody is greedy
and selfish, and I am too. If you want to make any money off of this,
I want a piece of it, and I don't care if you're giving anything back.
If you're not making any money off of your use, don't be too
ambitious: make sure whatever you're doing is worthless."
I don't understand this at all. My understanding of noncommercial is "I
don't want to make any money off this work, and I don't want anyone else
to make any money off my work." I do not see how this can be understood
as consistent with "I am [greedy] too," since it asserts that I don't
want any compensation for my work. I don't understand how this can mean
"I want a piece of [the financial profit] when it says that I want there
not to be a financial profit for anyone, including me. But the part I
understand least is the "make sure whatever you're doing is worthless";
what does not wanting money to change hands have to do with quality?

Best,

David
Sebastian Rahtz
2006-12-13 22:53:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David J Birnbaum
Does a sharealike license permit someone to use my stuff in a
commercial product (that is, a product that they will then sell)?
yes, it does. but their changed version of _your_ work, if any, must
be made available for free. what sharealike does NOT do
is force them to share their _own_ work with you under the same
licence. That's the characteristic of the GPL which makes it so
attractive (or not)
to many people

Sebastian
Gabriel BODARD
2006-12-13 23:35:46 UTC
Permalink
To clarify a point which is probably perfectly clear to everyone, using
a Creative Commons non-commercial license (or any other) doesn't give
you any stronger rights or controls over your shared work than you would
automatically have under local copyright law. So if I publish an
article, or a story, or a piece of art, or a computer programme (code
visible or not), or an XML file-- I am automatically protected by law
for a certain amount of time from anyone re-using this work in a way
that would damage my ability to make my living from it. Fair use is an
exception to this: almost all copyrighted work can be cited, exerpted,
reproduced, imitated for purposes of review, criticism, parody,
education, etc., within certain limits.

(If TBE are only exerpting from published TEI XML files for the purpose
of teaching etc., they may be covered by fair use anyway, in which case
they don't need a new copyright license as the original copyright is
unaffected. You also can't stop them, whatever license they choose to
put on *their own* work around this stuff.)

But my point in stating the obvious like this is that you can waive any
of the protections copyright affords you at any time merely by granting
permission to use your work, and that a Creative Commons license merely
allows you to formally waive certain categories of protection in advance
so that people don't need to ask your permission to reproduce the work.
None of the official CC licenses are designed to waive your right to be
identified as the original author of the work (hence "by-" is at the
start of all licenses). Some waive all other reproduction rights; others
waive rights only for non-commercial use of the work. (I haven't looked,
but I'm surprised if the license does not define "non-commercial" more
clearly than has been suggested on this list. I'm not a lawyer.)

The problem with the non-commercial clause in the CC license is not that
it prevents people from making money from your work (if you think
there's a very real chance of that happening, and it would harm you,
then non-commercial *is* probably a useful tag for you), but that it
prevents large projects that collect, re-use, re-disseminate,
re-purpose, even re-transform such files from redistributing them under
a more permissive license without asking for individual permission.
(Your file would not be able to be quoted or reproduced in the
Wikipedia, for example, which distributes all content under an
Attribution-only license, and does not have the resources to ask for
written permission in individual cases.) Analogously, if you disribute
your work under a No-Derivatives license, then a project like TBE can
not use your code to create derivative teaching materials--unless they
can claim Fair Use. I assume that the project intends to collect a
sufficiently large sample of code that negociating individual
permissions in each case is ultimately unfeasible (but as I know nothing
about the project I may be wrong).

I suspect I've gone on too long already on a topic of marginal
connection to TEI-L, but it is an argument that needs to be rehearsed by
all who are considering free electronic publication.

G
--
Dr Gabriel BODARD

Inscriptions of Aphrodisias
Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
Kay House
7, Arundel Street
London WC2R 3DX
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=WC2R3DX

Email: ***@kcl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980
Sebastian Rahtz
2006-12-14 09:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Fair use is an exception to this: almost all copyrighted work can be
cited, exerpted, reproduced, imitated for purposes of review,
criticism, parody, education, etc., within certain limits.
One would have to look at particular examples, but I suspect that
excerpting 200
lines of XML from my text and basing a pedagogical example on it goes
beyond this. It depends on how its done. I think use in a classroom
environment
is reasonable, in a structured educational text not.

Sebastian
Orion Buckminster Montoya
2006-12-14 04:34:45 UTC
Permalink
I had responded to David's message from a non-subscribed address, so
only he saw it. In the meantime Sebastian has written two replies,
one of which expressed most of the same ideas, the other of which
refuted one of my points. But just so we're all on the same page,
what I said was:

<repost>
"I'd be delighted to have you use my work to enhance yours, but it
would be in Bad Taste for you to take something for free while
refusing to give anything back, and I'm not willing to facilitate
greed and selfishness."
This is exactly the effect of sharealike, though: setting an example
and forcing commercial people to share their stuff if they want to use
your stuff.[* refuted point]

Noncommercial sends a different message: "I assume everybody is greedy
and selfish, and I am too. If you want to make any money off of this,
I want a piece of it, and I don't care if you're giving anything back.
If you're not making any money off of your use, don't be too
ambitious: make sure whatever you're doing is worthless."
because the issue arose on this list in the context of the "TEI by
example" enterprise, I hope that it won't be considered too far off topic.
If a thread here has been started by Sebastian, James and Lou, I think
we can call it on topic. And the licensing of TEIBE is important.
[* now it's getting off topic, after what I write below]

I assume the initial -nc- choice was made to keep semi- or
holo-commercial contributors from shying away [from contributing].
But clearly, since the whole point is to allow people to learn by
example and create derivatives, it would be weird to say either nc or
nd.

Has anybody found the link for the raw TEI of Newton's Chymistry? Me
want.
</repost>
for me? Does a sharealike license permit someone to use my stuff in a
commercial product (that is, a product that they will then sell)? If
not, have I been advocating sharealike all-along, but mistakenly calling
it "non-commercial," which the entire world understands differently than
I do?
Sharealike does permit them to use your work in such a product that
they sell, but it compels them to do so ethically: if in a collected
work, they can sell it but must continue to make your work available
under the [BY-SA] terms they received it; if a derivative work, they
must make the whole work available under those terms. The reason many
people see sharingalike as ethically/functionally equivalent to
noncommercial is that sharealike does not encumber any of the myriad
ways of selling that are not nasty, evil, cutthroat or anti-community.
NC means that someone can put your work on CDs and give them away to
their heart's content, but the minute they ask for a dollar to defray
their costs in buying all these spindles of CD-Rs, their license is
automatically terminated.

Oh, before I spend the whole night on this, just read this:
("Creative Commons -NC Licenses Considered Harmful")
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/9/11/16331/0655
Noncommercial sends a different message: "I assume everybody is greedy
I don't understand this at all. My understanding of noncommercial is "I
want any compensation for my work. I don't understand how this can mean
"I want a piece of [the financial profit] when it says that I want there
not to be a financial profit for anyone, including me. But the part I
Sorry, I was expressing the caboose of a train of thought I've been on
for years. A noncommercial condition is not the end of the
conversation on a creative commons license: anyone who wants to do
commercial work with your stuff still has a chance to do so: they just
come and talk to you directly. This has even happened to my
girlfriend, for a random photo she had under by-nc on Flickr (for an
academic book, which wouldn't have been able to pay her even if she'd
been inclined to ask for it). NC doesn't eternally prohibit commerce:
it just forces the commercial entity to involve you.

The reason I frame this as inevitable and a deliberate choice instead
of merely possible (aside from rhetorical bullying) is that the
presence of NC as a condition on your thing sort of creates a
potential reality where someone is going to want to sell it. For the
most part this reality remains only potential: there is probably more
CC-NC content out there than there are people who'd want to use/abuse
it for profit. But in the event that a commercial concern comes upon
your work and decides to use it for profit -- which of course in this
case means not only selling it outright on paper, but also in an
anthology, or on a radio broadcast, or in a visual on broadcast TV, or
in an advertisement for their organic vegetables grown by Somali
refugees -- the reality pops into existence.

Under a CC-BY-SA license, they can use it without consulting you, but
they have to give you credit and let people get at the original (and
their derivative work): i.e., they have to be a good citizen like you.
You are setting the example, and asking them to follow it.

But with NC, there's the chance that they'll deal with you, and
they'll be so eager to use it that they will make you an offer you
can't refuse. And at the end of the day, with this deal made, you
would benefit yourself and the commercial entitiy, while not doing a
whit of good for the commons or the community or setting any example
of the kind you set out to set. This separate, smoke-filled-room
arrangement would be just between you two parties, and probably not
governed by a meaningfully CC license.

Whereas under a SA license someone could also approach you for
separate, non-CC licensing, and you could say yes, but the rest of the
CC and CC-SA world would not be left out: they could still sell it if
they wanted, or not if they don't, as long as they comply with your
terms.
understand least is the "make sure whatever you're doing is worthless";
what does not wanting money to change hands have to do with quality?
This is echoed also in Sebastian's:

"so go ahead, make your academic reputation by building on my work,
make lecture tours, get your promotion - but please don't make any
actual cash."

Part of the purpose and potential of CC is to create this whole
separate creative ecosystem, where you can sample Run-DMC under SA
without apprehension, where you can make your SA documentary without
having to blur background TV screens, etc. By choosing NC you are
supporting this ecosystem only in a crippled, hobbyist form that is
ultimately unsustainable. Want to charge admission to your SA musical
performance that samples my TEI document? SOL. Want to run Google
ads alongside your SA documentary to defray bandwidth costs? Not on
my license. Best to keep it quiet, only perform your music at
open-mic nights, and if your video gets popular, just let your web
host throttle you for bandwidth overage.

Eben Moglen has said: "The great moral question of the twenty-first
century is this: if all knowing, all culture, all art, all useful
information can be costlessly given to everyone at the same price that
it is given to anyone; if everyone can have everything, anywhere, all
the time, why is it ever moral to exclude anyone?".

You are on the right side of this question, in that you don't want to
exclude anyone from getting your work for no cost. But in saying that
*everyone* must get your work for no cost, in any form, you are
letting down the commons and limiting the potential of your licensed
work. Yes, Rupert Murdoch will be able to sell 1,000,000 copies of
your book and keep all the profit. But the book would have to tell
your readers that it is CC BY-SA, and anyone who wanted it but felt
they couldn't afford the $34.95 could still download it from you or
from your army of clones.

But maybe the kuro5hin article already convinced you...

O.
Martin Holmes
2006-12-13 12:49:50 UTC
Permalink
Hi there,

Your list doesn't include authoring (creating new documents directly in
TEI). Would TEI By Example also be interested in direct-to-TEI documents
such as conference papers and abstracts, or dictionaries?

Cheers,
Martin
Post by TEI by example
[apologies for cross-posting]
The Centre for Scholarly Editing and Document Studies (CTB)
<http://www.kantl.be/ctb/> of the Royal Academy of Dutch Language and
Literature, the Centre for Computing in the Humanities (CCH)
<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/> of King's College London, and the
School for Library, Archive, and Information Studies (SLAIS)
<http://www.slais.ucl.ac.uk/> of University College London, are involved
in the joint project "TEI by Example".
Featuring freely available online tutorials walking individuals through
the different stages in marking up a document in TEI (Text Encoding
Initiative <http://www.tei-c.org>), these online tutorials will provide
examples for users of all levels. Examples will be provided of different
document types, with varying degrees in the granularity of markup, to
provide a useful teaching and reference aid for those involved in the
marking up of texts.
Eight tutorial modules will address a wide range of issues in text
1. Introduction to text encoding with TEI
2. The TEI header
3. Prose
4. Poetry
5. Drama
6. Manuscript Transcription
7. Scholarly Editing
8. Customizing TEI, ODD, Roma
To build as much as possible on available sources of existing practice
in the field and to be able to present a broad view on the wide variety
of encoding practices, we warmly welcome you to contribute TEI-encoded
examples (either fragments or complete texts) that are applicable to any
of these subjects. Examples are preferably encoded as TEI P5 XML texts,
but also texts encoded in TEI P4 XML, other XML formats, or other
(documented) electronic formats are of interest. Even examples of
less-ideal encoding practices are welcome, since the idea of learning by
error is a valuable didactic principle. Please do provide some
indication of the errors or controversies in such examples when
appropriate. After selection and editing, the example fragments will be
incorporated in the freely available online deliverables, which will be
issued under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No
Derivatives licence (see
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/>). All contributors
will be credited.
The examples can be sent (preferably compressed in .zip format and with
an indication of applicability and credits due) to
inquiries regarding copyright issues or any more general issues.
Kind regards,
Ron Van den Branden,
Melissa Terras,
Edward Vanhoutte
TEI by example
2006-12-14 14:22:31 UTC
Permalink
Hi Martin,

That's right, there is no module on "authoring TEI documents". Yet, to
the extent that born-TEI documents illustrate the use of general TEI
encoding concepts (text structure, paragraphs, names, abbreviations,
...), I don't see why we wouldn't want conference papers or abstracts
(although I doubt dictionaries would be of use).

Cheers,

Ron Van den Branden
Post by Martin Holmes
Hi there,
Your list doesn't include authoring (creating new documents directly
in TEI). Would TEI By Example also be interested in direct-to-TEI
documents such as conference papers and abstracts, or dictionaries?
Cheers,
Martin
Lou
2006-12-13 17:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Well said. I agree.

Lou
Post by Martin Mueller
I"m with Sebastian on this. The differences between the commercial
and non-commercial world are real enough, but we should think in
terms of bridges rather than walls when negotiating those
differences, which, like the poor, will always be with us.
Post by Sebastian Rahtz
Post by David J Birnbaum
I've always favored a non-commercial-only license for my own work
because that seemed to be the only leverage I had to say "I'd be
delighted to have you use my work to enhance yours, but it would
be in Bad Taste for you to take something for free while refusing
to give anything back, and I'm not willing to facilitate greed and
selfishness." In other words, I am trying to lead by example, and
also to require people to pay for the use of my work not with
money, but with their own Good Citizenship. I think of this
reasoning as my modest contribution toward creating the world in
which I would like to live, but if it is misguided, I'd be
grateful for gentle correction.
I applaud your sentiment entirely, but I think it is better served
by the CC sharealike license than a non-commercial. The sharealike
says
"I'd be delighted to have you use my work to enhance yours. If you
can make
money out of it, good for you; but I do insist that you carry on
the good work and make your
improvements as free to the world as mine were".
The CC-nocommercial license says "You can use my stuff and enhance
it, but only if you belong to
an ill-defined band of 'non-commercial' people (which I won't
define but You Know Who You Are);
so go ahead, make your academic reputation by building on my work,
make lecture tours, get your
promotion - but please don't make any actual cash. On other hand,
if you are a retired Eng Lit professor
making a few bob teaching markup to night classes _for money_
(heaven forfend!), then gosh I want
a slice of your action."
Have I convinced you?
Sebastian
Sebastian
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...