[bt-devel] What is the difference of Category and ModuleType?

[Peter von Kaehne]

Just to be abundantly clear:

I am no BibleTime developer, just a curious bystander who happened to write a (small-ish) flame. If you are offended by it, that should not detract you from engaging with BibleTime folk who are all quite marvellous people.

Peter


-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:09:18 +0100
> Von: Peter von Kaehne <refdoc at gmx.net>
> An: BibleTime development <bt-devel at crosswire.org>
> Betreff: Re: [bt-devel] What is the difference of Category and ModuleType?

> On 29/07/10 19:47, Olaf Radicke wrote:
> > ...then a redundant data? It's look like low consistency.
> >   
> 
> Without wishing to become ratty, it would make utter sense if you first
> get yourself acquainted with the library, its functions, its concepts
> and its capabilities prior to making every single post appear as a
> criticism. I am watching these threads with some amazement. I am no
> BibleTime coder, but am impressed by their patience towards your
> constant negative tone in conjunction with much ignorance. You may be a
> brilliant coder (I am none, so I can not comment on that) but I would
> not want to work with you at the current rate. Now, I am not a BibleTime
> developer, so you can ignore this post, if you wish so.
> 
> Insofar as the modules are concerned, no, I do not think there is much
> redundancy.
> 
> 1) The four module types are essentially four (3 1/2) different ways of
> encoding, accessing and organising a text. Incidentally these types
> happen to correspond to common categories of literature.
> 
> "Bible" -  a text organised along a canon of biblical books, chapters,
> verse, using a specific versification scheme and specific markup.
> 
> "Commentary", much the same, but with often bulky material not
> corresponding to specific verses or even chapters.
> 
> "GenBook" - a text much like most common books organised under a single
> overarching title, with an arbitrary depth hierarchy of parts, sections,
> chapters etc.
> 
> "LexDic" a text of a huge number of often short components, organised
> along an ordered set of keys.
> 
> This is the technical bit. There is not much in human literature which
> can not be gainfully encoded with the help of one of the four types
> above. A lot of stuff can gainfully be encoded in several of such ways.
> We have some Bibles encoded as GenBooks. This is one of  the two ways
> (currently rather dormant) in which we can deal with different
> versification schemes and canons.
> 
> 2) Users do not care about our technical representation. They organise
> their books/modules in categories of content, irrespective of underlying
> driver. While a devotional book may internally be very similar to a
> lexicon, it is something entirely different in content and a frontend
> which shows both as the same is missing the point. Similarly a GenBook
> encoded Bible should not appear as a GenBook but as a ordinary Bible as
> far as the user is concerned.
> 
> So, "Type" is about technical underpinnings, "Category" about user and
> content. There is no real redundancy here.
> 
> yours
> 
> Peter
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bt-devel mailing list
> bt-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/bt-devel

-- 
GMX DSL: Internet-, Telefon- und Handy-Flat ab 19,99 EUR/mtl.  
Bis zu 150 EUR Startguthaben inklusive! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl