FW: [osis-core] osisCore_Candiate_1.1_003 - 12 - splitID

[Steve DeRose]

At 09:43 AM -0600 08/26/02, Todd Tillinghast wrote:
>This is the post form Thursday regarding splitIDs.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
>[mailto:owner-osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org] On Behalf Of Todd
>Tillinghast
>Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 12:34 PM
>To: osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
>Subject: [osis-core] osisCore_Candiate_1.1_003 - 12 - splitID
>
>Patrick,
>
>I have not gotten a chance to write about splitID.
>
>Is there intention to indicate the sequence of the parts of a split
>element?

I had that impression; they would just be sequence-numbered. The 
split number would only need to be unique within a given osisID, not 
globally. If the splitIDs were letters (as Patrick just suggested), 
this would be basically like the convention people tend to use 
anyway: Matt.1.1a -- we'd just have some extra punctuation.

>
>Is the numeric value of the splitID used in the context of an osisID?

Yes, you define it there when doing split verses.

>
>Why is splitID a positive number rather than a simple xs:string?
>With a string a convention could be adopted to make it easier to create
>only unique splitIDs.  But I am not sure if they are supposed to be
>unique because I am not sure of the intended use.
>
>(You must intend case 1 or case 2 with the current schema.)
>Easy cases:
>Case 1:
><div>
><p>
>	<verse osisID="X" splitID="1"/>
></p>
><p>
>	<verse osisID="X" splitID="1"/>
></p>
></div>
>
>Case 2:
><div>
><p>
>	<verse osisID="X" splitID=" 1"/>
></p>
><p>
>	<verse osisID="X" splitID=" 2"/>
></p>
></div>
>
>
>Case 3:
><div>
><p>
>	<verse osisID="X" splitID="X.1"/>
></p>
><p>
>	<verse osisID="X" splitID="X.2"/>
></p>
></div>
>
>Case 4:
><div>
><p>
>	<verse osisID="X" splitID="ABC.1"/>
></p>
><p>
>	<verse osisID="X" splitID="ABC.2"/>
></p>
></div>
>
>
>Hard case:
><div>
>	<p>
>		<verse osisID="X.1"/>
>		<q splitID="2"/>
>		<verse osisID="X.2"/>
>		<verse osisID="X.3" splitID="1"/>
>		</q>
>	</p>
>	<q splitID="2"/>
>		<p>
>			<verse osisID="X.1"/>
>			<q splitID="3"/>
>				<verse osisID="X.3" splitID="3"/>
>				<verse osisID="X.4"/>
>				<verse osisID="X.5" splitID="4"/>
>			</q>
>		</p>
>		<p>
>			<q splitID="3"/>
>				<verse osisID="X.5" splitID="4"/>
>			</q>
>			<verse osisID="X.9" splitID="6"/>
>		</p>
>	<q splitID="2"/>
></div>
><div>
>	<p>
>		<q splitID="2"/>
>			<verse osisID="X.9" splitID="6"/>
>		</q>
>		<verse osisID="X.9" splitID="6"/>
>	</p>
>	<p>
>		<verse osisID="X.9" splitID="6"/>
>		<verse osisID="X.10"/>
>	</p>
></div>
>
>This is sort of nasty example but is similar to Matt.13 or the TEV only
>easier to read because I left out all of the other segmentation that
>takes place due to the lineGroup/lines.
>
>If the above what you have in mind?
>
>I think it would be better to have:
>A) A splitID that has a string value so that I would have used some
>thing like splitID="Q-X.1-001" for the quote identifier, but DOES NOT
>IMPLY ANY SORT OF ORDERING, with each element that is a part of the
>split having the same splitID AND having NOTHING to do with the osisID.
>OR
>B) (A) but also having a splitSeq value that is a positive integer that
>specifies sequence.
>C) Have a unique identifier that is the same for all of the element in
>the split AND is independent of the osisID AND is postpended with a
>value that indicates the sequence within the split.
>D) Use the current splitID as positive integer which is independent of
>the osisID and has not indication of sequence.
>E) Use the current splitID as appositive integer with is dependant on
>the osisID and NOT handle splits for elements that don't have an osisID.
>
>I think options A and B are good options.
>
>Thoughs?
>
>Todd


-- 

Steve DeRose -- http://www.stg.brown.edu/~sjd
Chair, Bible Technologies Group -- http://www.bibletechnologies.net
Email: sderose@speakeasy.net
Backup email: sjd@stg.brown.edu