Here is our plan for flagging entries for the Elders to review:

-Keep existing RevisionDesc status values. As ECH reviews a file to take it from “edited” to “complete”, she will tag the relevant entries with n=”referToElders”.

-Within each <entry n=”referToElders”>, we will include a <note type=”referToElders”>, in which we will put our questions for the Elders. This will display on the database website like any other [Note:].

-MDH will create a page on the dictionary site with a list of all the entries with <entry n=”referToElders”> We still want to include these entries on the Finished Entries page, and the All Entries page. They will still have their green, amber, or red status "traffic light", but will also be flagged with a question mark.

-Language apprentices will work with the Elders to review the flagged entries. They could read the questions out to the Elders, and/or print a screen of entries with Notes.

-The changes arising out of the Elders' feedback should be input immediately. The apprentices could either update the entries directly into the xml files themselves, or send their changes / additions to ECH or SMK to enter. ECH would give the entry a final check and remove the n=”referToElders” attribute. Two Elders will each be working 10 hours a week when we get the grant, on other language documentation work as well as reviewing the dictionary entries.

-Both @resp and <bibl> will be used as appropriate to mark up contributions from the Elders.

-If the Elders want to add new material, beyond commenting on Kinkade's data, this would have to go into a new xml file, not be added to existing files. A subsequent stage of the project could expand the database beyond Kinkade's data.