Is the TEI a ISO standard?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Is the TEI a ISO standard?

Robinson, Peter
Dear everyone

For various reasons, I have to answer the subject-line question: is the TEI a ISO standard?

Googling around, I can see many ISO standards relevant to the TEI, in the form of ISO standards defining constructs upon which the TEI is built. For example:

https://www.iso.org/standard/38615.html (cited for example by Lou Burnard in his recent "What is TEI Conformance, and Why Should You Care?” at https://journals.openedition.org/jtei/1777) is "ISO/IEC 19757-4:2006” and defines “Namespace-based Validation Dispatching Language (NVDL)” as Part 4 of "Information technology — Document Schema Definition Languages (DSDL)”. A rummage around inside ISO/IEC 19757 reveals many parts to a family of standards under the umbrella of "Information technology — Document Schema Definition Languages (DSDL)”. However, I don’t see that the TEI itself is a ISO standard (and I can understand many reasons why it would not be appropriate for the whole TEI to become, or aspire to become, such a standard.

One might conceive, however, that a discrete section of the TEI might become a ISO standard. A prime candidate might be the module on manuscript descriptions. But again, I can’t see any evidence that this or any segment of the TEI is a ISO standard. But perhaps I am looking in the wrong place.

There are, of course, many ISO standards used by the TEI. “att.datable.iso” is built on  ISO date, time, and date & time formats. The corpus linguistics community has been particularly concerned to cross-walk the TEI with ISO standards (for example, Maik Stührenberg "The TEI and Current Standards for Structuring Linguistic Data: An Overview” at https://doi.org/10.4000/jtei.523. One could go on.

Have I missed something?

Peter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is the TEI a ISO standard?

Daniel O'Donnell-2
My understanding is that the TEI and ISO have worked together for a number of years on language resource management https://www.iso.org/committee/297592.html

There are now a couple (I believe) of joint standards coming out of that. But I think that's the only area specifically named.


From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list <[hidden email]> on behalf of Robinson, Peter <[hidden email]>
Sent: November 25, 2020 11:00
To: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Subject: Is the TEI a ISO standard?
 
Caution: This email was sent from someone outside of the University of Lethbridge. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you know they are safe. Suspicious emails should be forwarded to [hidden email].


Dear everyone

For various reasons, I have to answer the subject-line question: is the TEI a ISO standard?

Googling around, I can see many ISO standards relevant to the TEI, in the form of ISO standards defining constructs upon which the TEI is built. For example:

https://www.iso.org/standard/38615.html (cited for example by Lou Burnard in his recent "What is TEI Conformance, and Why Should You Care?” at https://journals.openedition.org/jtei/1777) is "ISO/IEC 19757-4:2006” and defines “Namespace-based Validation Dispatching Language (NVDL)” as Part 4 of "Information technology — Document Schema Definition Languages (DSDL)”. A rummage around inside ISO/IEC 19757 reveals many parts to a family of standards under the umbrella of "Information technology — Document Schema Definition Languages (DSDL)”. However, I don’t see that the TEI itself is a ISO standard (and I can understand many reasons why it would not be appropriate for the whole TEI to become, or aspire to become, such a standard.

One might conceive, however, that a discrete section of the TEI might become a ISO standard. A prime candidate might be the module on manuscript descriptions. But again, I can’t see any evidence that this or any segment of the TEI is a ISO standard. But perhaps I am looking in the wrong place.

There are, of course, many ISO standards used by the TEI. “att.datable.iso” is built on  ISO date, time, and date & time formats. The corpus linguistics community has been particularly concerned to cross-walk the TEI with ISO standards (for example, Maik Stührenberg "The TEI and Current Standards for Structuring Linguistic Data: An Overview” at https://doi.org/10.4000/jtei.523. One could go on.

Have I missed something?

Peter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is the TEI a ISO standard?

Laurent Romary
In reply to this post by Robinson, Peter
Dear Peter,
Let me try to make it short but informative as well (not easy).
ISO is a so-called Standards Development Organisation which develops standards, identifiable by numbers (e.g. ISO 639-1), after they have gone through a specific process of consensus building and decision making (through ballots). ISO is actually organised as a consortium of member bodies represented by national standards organisation (e.g. AFNOR in France, BSI in the UK).
The TEI consortium, I would argue, is another SDO, organised as a consortium of a different type and producing a single - yet multi-facetted - standard: the TEI Guidelines.
These are thus two different things and therefore the sentence “Is the TEI an ISO standard” could sound weird.
Still:
- the TEI consortium and ISO have a collaboration agreement under which some ISO standards could be jointly developed while each party keeping their copyright on the content and disseminating it through their own channels. 
- under this agreement, for instance, ISO 24610-1:2006 Language resource management — Feature structures — Part 1: Feature structure representation corresponds to the feature structure representation section of the guidelines
- several ISO standards use the TEI as a possible serialisation, see for instance the about-t-o-be-published ISO/FDIS 24613-4 Language resource management — Lexical markup framework (LMF) — Part 4: TEI serialization; that  has been developed in conjunction with the TEI Lex 0 initiative (which has just won the Sebastian Rahtz price - 😎)
- like you mentioned the TEI guidelines also use a variety of ISO standards
Does this help?
Cheers
Laurent


Le 25 nov. 2020 à 19:00, Robinson, Peter <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Dear everyone

For various reasons, I have to answer the subject-line question: is the TEI a ISO standard?

Googling around, I can see many ISO standards relevant to the TEI, in the form of ISO standards defining constructs upon which the TEI is built. For example:

https://www.iso.org/standard/38615.html (cited for example by Lou Burnard in his recent "What is TEI Conformance, and Why Should You Care?” at https://journals.openedition.org/jtei/1777) is "ISO/IEC 19757-4:2006” and defines “Namespace-based Validation Dispatching Language (NVDL)” as Part 4 of "Information technology — Document Schema Definition Languages (DSDL)”. A rummage around inside ISO/IEC 19757 reveals many parts to a family of standards under the umbrella of "Information technology — Document Schema Definition Languages (DSDL)”. However, I don’t see that the TEI itself is a ISO standard (and I can understand many reasons why it would not be appropriate for the whole TEI to become, or aspire to become, such a standard.

One might conceive, however, that a discrete section of the TEI might become a ISO standard. A prime candidate might be the module on manuscript descriptions. But again, I can’t see any evidence that this or any segment of the TEI is a ISO standard. But perhaps I am looking in the wrong place.

There are, of course, many ISO standards used by the TEI. “att.datable.iso” is built on  ISO date, time, and date & time formats. The corpus linguistics community has been particularly concerned to cross-walk the TEI with ISO standards (for example, Maik Stührenberg "The TEI and Current Standards for Structuring Linguistic Data: An Overview” at https://doi.org/10.4000/jtei.523. One could go on.

Have I missed something?

Peter

Laurent Romary
Inria, team ALMAnaCH






Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is the TEI a ISO standard?

Robinson, Peter
Yes, that is a very useful summary. As I suspected: the question is itself poorly formulated (like asking: what sort of plant is an elephant?). There is a significant and vital symbiosis between the TEI and ISO, which cannot be simply characterized as identity/part of etc. In the same way as plants and elephants are linked together in complex and fundamental ways, so are the TEI and ISO relevant to each other. We can erect various metaphors to characterize the relevance (as noisy and occasionally squabbling relatives, etc). But relevant, related, they definitely are.

P

On Nov 25, 2020, at 12:32 PM, Laurent Romary <[hidden email]> wrote:

CAUTION: External to USask. Verify sender and use caution with links and attachments. Forward suspicious emails to [hidden email]

Dear Peter,
Let me try to make it short but informative as well (not easy).
ISO is a so-called Standards Development Organisation which develops standards, identifiable by numbers (e.g. ISO 639-1), after they have gone through a specific process of consensus building and decision making (through ballots). ISO is actually organised as a consortium of member bodies represented by national standards organisation (e.g. AFNOR in France, BSI in the UK).
The TEI consortium, I would argue, is another SDO, organised as a consortium of a different type and producing a single - yet multi-facetted - standard: the TEI Guidelines.
These are thus two different things and therefore the sentence “Is the TEI an ISO standard” could sound weird.
Still:
- the TEI consortium and ISO have a collaboration agreement under which some ISO standards could be jointly developed while each party keeping their copyright on the content and disseminating it through their own channels. 
- under this agreement, for instance, ISO 24610-1:2006 Language resource management — Feature structures — Part 1: Feature structure representation corresponds to the feature structure representation section of the guidelines
- several ISO standards use the TEI as a possible serialisation, see for instance the about-t-o-be-published ISO/FDIS 24613-4 Language resource management — Lexical markup framework (LMF) — Part 4: TEI serialization; that  has been developed in conjunction with the TEI Lex 0 initiative (which has just won the Sebastian Rahtz price - 😎)
- like you mentioned the TEI guidelines also use a variety of ISO standards
Does this help?
Cheers
Laurent


Le 25 nov. 2020 à 19:00, Robinson, Peter <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Dear everyone

For various reasons, I have to answer the subject-line question: is the TEI a ISO standard?

Googling around, I can see many ISO standards relevant to the TEI, in the form of ISO standards defining constructs upon which the TEI is built. For example:

https://www.iso.org/standard/38615.html (cited for example by Lou Burnard in his recent "What is TEI Conformance, and Why Should You Care?” at https://journals.openedition.org/jtei/1777) is "ISO/IEC 19757-4:2006” and defines “Namespace-based Validation Dispatching Language (NVDL)” as Part 4 of "Information technology — Document Schema Definition Languages (DSDL)”. A rummage around inside ISO/IEC 19757 reveals many parts to a family of standards under the umbrella of "Information technology — Document Schema Definition Languages (DSDL)”. However, I don’t see that the TEI itself is a ISO standard (and I can understand many reasons why it would not be appropriate for the whole TEI to become, or aspire to become, such a standard.

One might conceive, however, that a discrete section of the TEI might become a ISO standard. A prime candidate might be the module on manuscript descriptions. But again, I can’t see any evidence that this or any segment of the TEI is a ISO standard. But perhaps I am looking in the wrong place.

There are, of course, many ISO standards used by the TEI. “att.datable.iso” is built on  ISO date, time, and date & time formats. The corpus linguistics community has been particularly concerned to cross-walk the TEI with ISO standards (for example, Maik Stührenberg "The TEI and Current Standards for Structuring Linguistic Data: An Overview” at https://doi.org/10.4000/jtei.523. One could go on.

Have I missed something?

Peter

Laurent Romary
Inria, team ALMAnaCH







Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is the TEI a ISO standard?

ANTONIO ROJAS CASTRO
Hello, 

Very interesting conversation! I learned a lot. I would only like to add that SGML was in fact an ISO standard (8879:1986 Information processing – Text and office systems). Since XML (and thus TEI) derive from SGML, we could argue that it is an ISO conformant to some extent...  

All the best,

El mié, 25 nov 2020 a las 20:02, Robinson, Peter (<[hidden email]>) escribió:
Yes, that is a very useful summary. As I suspected: the question is itself poorly formulated (like asking: what sort of plant is an elephant?). There is a significant and vital symbiosis between the TEI and ISO, which cannot be simply characterized as identity/part of etc. In the same way as plants and elephants are linked together in complex and fundamental ways, so are the TEI and ISO relevant to each other. We can erect various metaphors to characterize the relevance (as noisy and occasionally squabbling relatives, etc). But relevant, related, they definitely are.

P

On Nov 25, 2020, at 12:32 PM, Laurent Romary <[hidden email]> wrote:

CAUTION: External to USask. Verify sender and use caution with links and attachments. Forward suspicious emails to [hidden email]

Dear Peter,
Let me try to make it short but informative as well (not easy).
ISO is a so-called Standards Development Organisation which develops standards, identifiable by numbers (e.g. ISO 639-1), after they have gone through a specific process of consensus building and decision making (through ballots). ISO is actually organised as a consortium of member bodies represented by national standards organisation (e.g. AFNOR in France, BSI in the UK).
The TEI consortium, I would argue, is another SDO, organised as a consortium of a different type and producing a single - yet multi-facetted - standard: the TEI Guidelines.
These are thus two different things and therefore the sentence “Is the TEI an ISO standard” could sound weird.
Still:
- the TEI consortium and ISO have a collaboration agreement under which some ISO standards could be jointly developed while each party keeping their copyright on the content and disseminating it through their own channels. 
- under this agreement, for instance, ISO 24610-1:2006 Language resource management — Feature structures — Part 1: Feature structure representation corresponds to the feature structure representation section of the guidelines
- several ISO standards use the TEI as a possible serialisation, see for instance the about-t-o-be-published ISO/FDIS 24613-4 Language resource management — Lexical markup framework (LMF) — Part 4: TEI serialization; that  has been developed in conjunction with the TEI Lex 0 initiative (which has just won the Sebastian Rahtz price - 😎)
- like you mentioned the TEI guidelines also use a variety of ISO standards
Does this help?
Cheers
Laurent


Le 25 nov. 2020 à 19:00, Robinson, Peter <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Dear everyone

For various reasons, I have to answer the subject-line question: is the TEI a ISO standard?

Googling around, I can see many ISO standards relevant to the TEI, in the form of ISO standards defining constructs upon which the TEI is built. For example:

https://www.iso.org/standard/38615.html (cited for example by Lou Burnard in his recent "What is TEI Conformance, and Why Should You Care?” at https://journals.openedition.org/jtei/1777) is "ISO/IEC 19757-4:2006” and defines “Namespace-based Validation Dispatching Language (NVDL)” as Part 4 of "Information technology — Document Schema Definition Languages (DSDL)”. A rummage around inside ISO/IEC 19757 reveals many parts to a family of standards under the umbrella of "Information technology — Document Schema Definition Languages (DSDL)”. However, I don’t see that the TEI itself is a ISO standard (and I can understand many reasons why it would not be appropriate for the whole TEI to become, or aspire to become, such a standard.

One might conceive, however, that a discrete section of the TEI might become a ISO standard. A prime candidate might be the module on manuscript descriptions. But again, I can’t see any evidence that this or any segment of the TEI is a ISO standard. But perhaps I am looking in the wrong place.

There are, of course, many ISO standards used by the TEI. “att.datable.iso” is built on  ISO date, time, and date & time formats. The corpus linguistics community has been particularly concerned to cross-walk the TEI with ISO standards (for example, Maik Stührenberg "The TEI and Current Standards for Structuring Linguistic Data: An Overview” at https://doi.org/10.4000/jtei.523. One could go on.

Have I missed something?

Peter

Laurent Romary
Inria, team ALMAnaCH









--
Dr. Antonio Rojas Castro
Post-doctoral Researcher, BBAW
Editor, The Programming Historian en español


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is the TEI a ISO standard?

Laurent Romary
The TEI is actually cited first in the SGML application list in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Generalized_Markup_Language ;-)
Besides, I seem to remember (but no time to check details) that SGML has been corrected to ensure compliance with XML, which would make your stance even stronger.
And we should not forget the seminal role of the TEI in the definition of XML (non empty intersection of editors at the time with Michael Sperberg-McQueen)
Cheers
Laurent

Le 27 nov. 2020 à 10:53, Antonio Rojas Castro <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Hello, 

Very interesting conversation! I learned a lot. I would only like to add that SGML was in fact an ISO standard (8879:1986 Information processing – Text and office systems). Since XML (and thus TEI) derive from SGML, we could argue that it is an ISO conformant to some extent...  

All the best,

El mié, 25 nov 2020 a las 20:02, Robinson, Peter (<[hidden email]>) escribió:
Yes, that is a very useful summary. As I suspected: the question is itself poorly formulated (like asking: what sort of plant is an elephant?). There is a significant and vital symbiosis between the TEI and ISO, which cannot be simply characterized as identity/part of etc. In the same way as plants and elephants are linked together in complex and fundamental ways, so are the TEI and ISO relevant to each other. We can erect various metaphors to characterize the relevance (as noisy and occasionally squabbling relatives, etc). But relevant, related, they definitely are.

P

On Nov 25, 2020, at 12:32 PM, Laurent Romary <[hidden email]> wrote:

CAUTION: External to USask. Verify sender and use caution with links and attachments. Forward suspicious emails to [hidden email]

Dear Peter,
Let me try to make it short but informative as well (not easy).
ISO is a so-called Standards Development Organisation which develops standards, identifiable by numbers (e.g. ISO 639-1), after they have gone through a specific process of consensus building and decision making (through ballots). ISO is actually organised as a consortium of member bodies represented by national standards organisation (e.g. AFNOR in France, BSI in the UK).
The TEI consortium, I would argue, is another SDO, organised as a consortium of a different type and producing a single - yet multi-facetted - standard: the TEI Guidelines.
These are thus two different things and therefore the sentence “Is the TEI an ISO standard” could sound weird.
Still:
- the TEI consortium and ISO have a collaboration agreement under which some ISO standards could be jointly developed while each party keeping their copyright on the content and disseminating it through their own channels. 
- under this agreement, for instance, ISO 24610-1:2006 Language resource management — Feature structures — Part 1: Feature structure representation corresponds to the feature structure representation section of the guidelines
- several ISO standards use the TEI as a possible serialisation, see for instance the about-t-o-be-published ISO/FDIS 24613-4 Language resource management — Lexical markup framework (LMF) — Part 4: TEI serialization; that  has been developed in conjunction with the TEI Lex 0 initiative (which has just won the Sebastian Rahtz price - 😎)
- like you mentioned the TEI guidelines also use a variety of ISO standards
Does this help?
Cheers
Laurent


Le 25 nov. 2020 à 19:00, Robinson, Peter <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Dear everyone

For various reasons, I have to answer the subject-line question: is the TEI a ISO standard?

Googling around, I can see many ISO standards relevant to the TEI, in the form of ISO standards defining constructs upon which the TEI is built. For example:

https://www.iso.org/standard/38615.html (cited for example by Lou Burnard in his recent "What is TEI Conformance, and Why Should You Care?” at https://journals.openedition.org/jtei/1777) is "ISO/IEC 19757-4:2006” and defines “Namespace-based Validation Dispatching Language (NVDL)” as Part 4 of "Information technology — Document Schema Definition Languages (DSDL)”. A rummage around inside ISO/IEC 19757 reveals many parts to a family of standards under the umbrella of "Information technology — Document Schema Definition Languages (DSDL)”. However, I don’t see that the TEI itself is a ISO standard (and I can understand many reasons why it would not be appropriate for the whole TEI to become, or aspire to become, such a standard.

One might conceive, however, that a discrete section of the TEI might become a ISO standard. A prime candidate might be the module on manuscript descriptions. But again, I can’t see any evidence that this or any segment of the TEI is a ISO standard. But perhaps I am looking in the wrong place.

There are, of course, many ISO standards used by the TEI. “att.datable.iso” is built on  ISO date, time, and date & time formats. The corpus linguistics community has been particularly concerned to cross-walk the TEI with ISO standards (for example, Maik Stührenberg "The TEI and Current Standards for Structuring Linguistic Data: An Overview” at https://doi.org/10.4000/jtei.523. One could go on.

Have I missed something?

Peter

Laurent Romary
Inria, team ALMAnaCH









--
Dr. Antonio Rojas Castro
Post-doctoral Researcher, BBAW
Editor, The Programming Historian en español



Laurent Romary
Inria, team ALMAnaCH