[osis-core] OSIS_0105:2 non-Bible References?

[Todd Tillinghast]

Patrick,

I don't think we are completely on the same page on this one yet.  I am
going to put togeather some test documents and schema for myself tonight and
will share the result(s) that are meaningful later tonight or tomorrow.

Todd

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
> [mailto:owner-osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org]On Behalf Of Patrick
> Durusau
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 7:42 AM
> To: osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
> Subject: Re: [osis-core] OSIS_0105:2 non-Bible References?
>
>
> Todd,
>
> Todd Tillinghast wrote:
>
> >This is really a reply to OSIS_0105:2, OSIS_0105:3, AND OSIS_0105:18.
> >
> >We seem to be uncomfortable or at least not completely settled on the
> >issue of "work", "reference", "ID", "IDREF", identifying who-am-I, and
> >i-point-at.
> >
> >I am starting to come over to the Patrick camp on the use of IDs and
> >IDREFs (with a few caveats).
> >
> >Problems I see that we want to solve and haven't cleanly solved:
> >1) We want to use IDs for the who-am-I case.
> >
> Yes, but this is only relevant for verse, chapter, book, milestones. A
> <p> for example, that contains Matthew 1:2-6a is not who-am-i =
> Matthew.1.2-6a. Rather, it is <p id = "para_2" reference = "Matt.1.2"
> referenceEnd = "Matt.1.6a"> assuming that both reference and
> referenceEnd are datatype IDREF and those IDs exist in the  document
> instance. (You could use Matthew.1.2-6a as an ID, meets all the
> qualifications for a valid XML name but is just a string, has no
> significance other than being different from every other ID string in
> the text. Probably not good practice as it will encourage people to get
> into "legitimate claims" for IDs type problems. IDs are a mechanism for
> use with processors, requesting fragments by ID for example based upon
> the response to a query that returns the IDs of all matching paragraphs,
> etc.)
>
> >
> >2) There are cases where two (or more) elements could legitimately claim
> >the same ID.
> >
> Assuming that elements contain (or mark the beginning and ending of
> segments as with milestones), unique portions of the text, how can two
> elements legitimately claim the same ID? (Apart from the restriction
> that all IDs must be unique.)
>
> >
> >3) We want to have a "generic" reference structure, but also want to
> >validate references to the Bible (and possibly other works) for a more
> >restrictive structure.
> >
> Yes, but see suggestion below.
>
>
> >
> >4) We want to use the behavior of IDREF when use a reference to point at
> >an element either in the same document or a different document.
> >
> No, IDREF is only within a document instance (including any included
> documents), else how is the parser to decide if the IDREF is valid? Can
> decide if a reference is valid against a restriction, however.
>
> >
> >5) We are struggling with the "work" structure both because it
> >represents the work and in some (but not all cases) the reference
> >system.
> >6) Our reference structure has no way of requiring "work" be indicated.
> >
> See suggestion for using "work" to create unique strings for references
> below.
>
>
> >
> >Solutions:
> >1) Derive a ReferenceType from both xs:ID and xs:IDREF.  This will give
> >us the two building blocks that we want to work with.
> >
>
> >
> >2) Declare that start milestones are the elements that use the ID for
> >references and that end milestones use IDREFs
> >
> No, this was the problem that came up late last week. Milestones had ID
> and had reference declared as ID datatype. Not valid (at least according
> to IBM)
>
> Need to separate reference and ID. Not the same notion, although we have
> been allowing ID on verse milestones to act as an implied reference.
> More for ease of coding than anything else.
>
> In the latest revision, which you will see before tonight,  milestones
> have ID and IDREF to make it clear when one is making reference to the
> other.
>
> >
> >Eg: <p reference="John.1.1"><verseStart marker="John.1.1"/> verse text
> ><verseEnd marker="John.1.1"/>
> >Where the marker attribute in <verseStart is derived from
> >IDReferenceType which is derived from ID AND
> >The marker attribute in <verseEnd> is derived from IDREFReferenceType
> >which is derived from IDREF AND
> >The reference attribute in <p> is derived from IDREFReferenceType which
> >is still derived from IDREF.
> >
> >(marker in <referenceStart>, <chapterStart> and <bookStart> would also
> >derive from IDReferenceType)
> >(encoders would have to decide between using <referenceStart> and
> >[<chapterStart>, <bookStart>, and <verseStart>] strategies for
> >milestones.)
> >
> >3) In order to solve the problems with work, reference system, AND ID
> >ambiguity, "work" would be abolished.  If the IDREFReferenceType points
> >to an ID in the same document then let it simply say
> >(reference="John.1.1") if the IDREFReferenceType points to an ID in a
> >different document the (reference="Bible_TEV.xml#John.1.1").
> >
> See above on IDREF pointing outside the document instance.
>
> >
> >4) Allow the marker in a start milestone to either be an
> >IDREFReferenceType OR IDReferenceType so that the milestone can point to
> >an externally defined reference system.
> >
> If a reference system schema is added to OSIS, then could validate such
> references but not as ID/IDREF.
>
> >
> >5) Have documents outside the documents being encoded define the set of
> >IDs that are the reference system being used within the documents.  The
> >Bible_TEV.xml file in #3 above is an example of a file that defines the
> >set of reference IDs.  This way ALL IDs are validateable AND this
> >solution works for all types of references and does not leave us with
> >one strategy for Bible related references and another one for "other"
> >references.  Further the "id defining" external documents can also allow
> >for "centeralized"/standard reference naming and strategies as well AND
> >also provides the mechanism for mapping between reference systems when
> >desired but does not force it when not needed/wanted.
> >
> If I have understood what you are saying (problematic I know but here
> goes) ;-)
>
> What you want is to validate the string that is used to refer to other
> works? Not that it actually points to something but that it is valid
> according to some reference system?
>
> In other words, KJV.YouOnlyLiveTwice.1.31 would not be a valid reference
> (within a document instance, not commenting on whether such a resource
> exists) according to the KJV reference scheme?
>
> Suggestion: Why not use the reference mechanism we have now but declare
> it to be a union of the compScriptureRef.xsd + other reference systems?
>
> In other words, a reference must match  some prefix (part of the regex
> for that reference scheme) plus the notation for that reference.
>
> Example:
>
> default Gen.1.1 (scripture reference being the default)
>
> Livy.Lives.1.15 (regex forces match on Livy, sort of like a namespace to
> prevent conflicts further down on references)
>
> Unless someone has a serious problem with this I will incorporate into
> OSIS_0106 to appear tomorrow (not in today's release).
>
>
> Patrick
>
>
> >
> >I hope this makes some sense.  I think a complete example would make
> >this really clear.  I can possibly to that Monday night but more likely
> >Tuesday.  I have to get to bed now because I will likely be awoken by
> >the youngest in about 4 hours.
> >
> >Thoughts?
> >
> >Todd
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: owner-osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org [mailto:owner-osis-
> >>core@bibletechnologieswg.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Durusau
> >>Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 10:35 AM
> >>To: osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
> >>Subject: [osis-core] OSIS_0105:2 non-Bible References?
> >>
> >>Troy,
> >>
> >>Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> >>
> >>>I'll try to tackle commenting on a few...
> >>>
> >>>>Separate the notion of Bible references from other references more
> >>>>generally. For non-Bible references, simply defer by declaring
> >>>>
> >non-Bible
> >
> >>>>references to be "x-" and to be treated at some later point with a
> >>>>validation mechanism like we have for Bible references.
> >>>>
> >>>Why are Bible references treated differently than non-Bible
> >>>
> >references?
> >
> >>>Per a previous email from Todd, we have a work= attribute that
> >>>
> >dictates
> >
> >>>schema (should it be a separate schema= attribute?), if we want to
> >>>enforce a schema.  Am I not following your thread of thought on this
> >>>one?
> >>>
> >>Sorry, confusion on my part. Did not interpret work (pointing to
> >>WorkType) as requiring validation to another (as yet proposed schema).
> >>
> >>Seems to be pointing to a regex? No?
> >>
> >>Help me here, what am I missing?
> >>
> >>Patrick
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>Patrick Durusau
> >>Director of Research and Development
> >>Society of Biblical Literature
> >>pdurusau@emory.edu
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Patrick Durusau
> Director of Research and Development
> Society of Biblical Literature
> pdurusau@emory.edu
>
>
>
>