1991:2 - Universitetet i Bergen

€hat a number of participants were daunted by the prospect of wading
through the Guidelines and SGML manuals. Several participants argued
that cornpendia were nded which identificd tags relerwt te each
subject area, although Michael Sperberg-McQueen said that it was too
earIy to prepare these since the TE1 was still under developrnent.
These anxieties about TE1 markup suggest that future werkshops must
devoie more time to the practical issues of developing Pocurneni Type
Definitions (DTDs) and marking up texts from participanrs' own research.
One person observed that we had not examined Document Type Defi-
nitions aIthough we had been told that that they wcre a cmcia1 part
of a TEI-conformant text, not Icast because they docurnent the tags
used. In fact. the booklet 'An Introduction to TE1 Tagging' which was
given to al1 thosc attending, provides a suitabIy gentle introduction to
tagging, as we11 as a sample DTD used to mark up the Robinson core
LexL However, even this DTD, described as 'a sirnplified TE1 document
type description', is eight pages long nnd includes 85 element tags.
Perhaps future workshops should use this more explicitly as a workbook
in a practical session replacing one ar mare of the software sessions.
Training of this sort is crucial if TEI recommendations are to be foHow
widel y.
Running a workshop for an audience mixed both in discipline and
experience is difficult. The use of Robinson as a core text was an
effective device, but there was always the risk (particularly in the
opening session) that peoplc would think hat this laid down what musl
be marked up for TEI-confomance. On the conrrary, each scholar wiII
only mark up the eIernents which be or she wishes to study. This is
why it is impomt for workshop participants to be given an opportunity
to lag their own texts under supervision.
This raises the broader question of how prescriptive the TE1 should
be. While somc participants expressed concem mat the TE1 was too
prescriptive, others pointed out hat users could develop their own
idiasyncratic atcributes, once again creating an obsrncle ro frec intet-
change of data. Should the TE1 (wiih help from subject-specific working
parries) develop increasingly detailed descriptions of document types
and tags (including cven subjecl-specific DTDs) which al1 scholars will
use? Or should scholars be leit fra m devel09 Iheir own tags and
DTDs based upon their research needs. wilh SGMZ-confomance pro-
viding a mechanism far documentation and thereiore erising exchange?
Thc latter approach is of particular relevante for su'bjecrs relalively
new to text-based analysis, cuch as history. but TEI cornpendia and
iraining will be needcd.
I found the TE1 Workshop both enjoyable and stimularing. Il is hard
to see how much more could have been packed into two tich days,
84 HUMANISTISKE DATA E91