create generic policy for the TEI on integration of external standards

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

At the Oxford 2013 face-to-face meeting, it was agreed that KH, SB, and LB would articulate a generic policy for the TEI on the integration of external standards. (See note at https://sourceforge.net/p/tei/feature-requests/482/#28f3 .) KH SB and LB emailed them:

Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 15:20:17 -0500 Subject: draft generic policy for TEI on the integration of external standards

Gentlemen,

In Oxford we were charged with drafting a one-page statement of policy regarding integration of external standards into the TEI (see discussion of FR 482). We are supposed to have this done before the next teleconference, which I believe will take place in January.

I've tried not to reference how we've done things in the past (for example, co-maintenance of feature structures) because it sounds like we realize that we don't want to do things like this in the future. In fact, Council may decide it wants to clean up past practice once we decide what we're doing in the future. For now, though, a brief statement of what we'd like to do in the future:

http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/Council/Working/tcw28.xml

Thoughts?

Kevin

I intentionally did not link it from http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/Council/Working/ since it hasn't been adopted by Council yet.

I'm creating this ticket so we don't forget about this.

It now occurs to me that tcw28 should also address whether to link to an RFC or a BCP if both exist for the same thing. I believe that if a document is revised, it gets a new RFC number, whereas the BCP number stays the same. So the BCP is good as a stable point of reference, but it could change without the TEI Council (or users) knowing about it, causing a discrepancy between what's in the BCP document and how users or the Guidelines examples use something.

Original comment by: @kshawkin

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

This issue was originally assigned to SF user: sbauman Current user is: sydb

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

• assigned_to: Syd Bauman

Original comment by: @jamescummings

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

Assigning to Syd Bauman to process, bring before council, implement, etc.

Original comment by: @jamescummings

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

Council discussion 2014-07-01: This should stay with SB for the group to edit more and explain the reasons behind the recommendations in the final two paragraphs.

Original comment by: @martindholmes

[sydb]

Council agrees that there is some merit to policy and draft that was produced, but does not feel it has the resources to address further at this time.

[kshawkin]

You sure you don't want to leave open this issue but add a label for something like "Status: Postponed"?

[laurentromary]

This is important enough an issue to be left opened... until someone has the CPU time to put together a draft. Shall we plan a discussion in Vienna?

[hcayless]

The situation is unchanged at this time. We've changed the status to blocked.