[osis-core] Eureka with respect to reference syntax!

[Patrick Durusau]

Todd,

I hope you stopped to grab your bathrobe after your "Eureka" experience. 
They were a lot more casual about that sort of thing in ancient Greece. 
Can get arrested now for running around nude in your own home. I guess 
that is progress. ;-)

Todd Tillinghast wrote:

>I think the core problem we are having with references and the related
>syntax are the following:
>
>1) In most cases within most Bibles and most (if not all) references a
>single user EVERY encounters a SINGLE reference system for Bibles will
>exist.
>
>2) It seems burdensome to force users to understand AND to specify a
>reference system will almost certainly be constant for ALL users they
>ever encounter.
>
Errr, #2 depends on how we do it, see comments below.

>
>3) If a user were to have to specify a reference system they would most
>likely turn to a specific WORK to describe/define the reference system
>they operate under.
>
>4) There are only a hand full of Bible related reference systems (likely
>two, possibly three) that 99% of users will ever come in contact with.
>The remaining reference systems will be used by scholars.
>
Not sure I want to have separate reference systems for the "common folk" 
and "scholars."

>
>5) A reference is ambiguous from an electronic perspective without
>specifying the reference system.
>
>6) Specifying a work to imply a reference system ties a reference that
>would otherwise be independent of a work to a specific work
>unnecessarily.
>
>7) Since only the reference system is acting in the ROLE of a namespace,
>it seems that we have possibly confused things by putting "work" on the
>LEFT side of the ":".
>
Don't know that I buy #7.

Even though I am using terms we have understood differently (up to this 
point) consider the current system (which I think you suggested ;-):

refSys[work]:canonical@grain-canonical@grain

Now if for explaining this to users we say:

refSys = Work as a class of things, Bibles the use the KJV verses

work = Edition, as a particular one of the class of things we called 
Work, such as the NIV

Then to refer to Matthew 1:1, generally, you write (with the default 
system of Bible.KJV)

Matt.1.1

or to write in full:

Bible.KJV:Matt.1.1

or to cite a particular translation, shorthand format:

[Bible.NIV]:Matt.1.1 (although I would like to see: [NIV]:Matt.1.1

That ties your reference system (general) into something they 
understand, along with the notion of an edition, which I also suspect 
they will understand.

May need the ability to default the refSys (as we call it) and the 
edition so they can use the shorthand method throughout.

>
>
>BACKGROUND POINTS:
>A) In the XML world the concept of a namespace is quite the norm as is
>the notion of a default namespace.  Once people understand that there
>can be other default reference systems (ie "confessions of Augustine",
>still being unaware of the fact that alternate reference systems exist
>for the Bible) the need for a prefix (that can be defaulted) to identify
>the set of identifiers an identifier will make sense.   (Users will
>understand that there can only be one default namespace and why
>Bible.OSIS:Matt.1.1 is necessary when "confessions.augustine" is the
>default reference system (aka namespace).
>
>B) A reference without a work is meaning full on its own.  If we were to
>be having a conversation and I were to mention "Matt.1.1", given the
>context of our location we would both assume the reference system that
>is predominant in the United States.  The reference I make to Matt.1.1
>has no tie to any one specific work and I can use the reference to
>identify a passage in a number of works.  If I had wanted to
>specifically mention a specific version I would have said some thing
>like "I found it interesting how Matt.1.1 reads in the Phillips".  
>
>C) Since we are talking about electronically encoding references we must
>provide a mechanism to make clear the reference system that would
>otherwise be obvious in causal conversation.  Since electronic documents
>and references do not carry a context such a context must be specified
>to make the ambiguous clear.
>
>
>PROPOSAL:
>1) Define a reference system Bible.OSIS.
>
>2) Make Bible.OSIS the default reference systems if no other reference
>system is stated as the default.  (This makes things easier for the
>people who don't know that an OSIS document could be used to encode
>works other than the Bible, but is not necessary for the remainder of
>the proposed points.)
>
>3) Use the identifier prior to the ":" EXCLUSIVELY for the reference
>system, and put the "work" if specified at the end of the reference.
>This way if the reference system is defaulted there will be no ":" in
>the normal XML fashon and there will be no confusion between the role of
>"work" and "refSystem".
>
>**********************************************************************
>**********************************************************************
>**********************************************************************
>**********************************************************************
>Regex form:
>refSystem:canonical@grain-canonical@grain[work]
>**********************************************************************
>**********************************************************************
>**********************************************************************
>**********************************************************************
>
>EXAMPLES:(default refererence system being Bible.OSIS)
>Matt.1.1 equals Bible.OSIS:Matt.1.1
>Matt.1.1[Bible.Phillips] equals Bible.OSIS:Matt.1.1[Bible.Phillips]
>
>Examples: (default reference system being confessions.augustine) (my
>apologies for my lack of knowledge of confessions.augustine)
>Bible.OSIS:Matt.1.1
>Bible.OSIS:Matt.1.1[Bible.Phillips]
>x.1 equals confessions.augustine:x.1
>x.1[confessions.augustine.XWork] equals
>confessions.augustine:x.1[confissions.augustine.XWork]
>
>
>If we don't want to default the reference system and give a bias to a
>particular reference system as well as a preference to an individual
>reference system targeted as a particular class of works, we can
>"subclass" the core schema and specify a default reference system in the
>derived schema.  This affords the same convenience to all users and does
>not favor those with more influence over the schema creation.  (We could
>also create a default in the core schema and provide derived schema for
>the other cases.)
>
>
>QUESTIONS:
>Is this the proposed regex a better solution and do you think we should
>adopt it?  If not why not?
>
Do not think we should adopt it, primarily because the notion of putting 
the work on the end of the expression will seem unnatural to most users. 
I know it makes no difference to our machines but for the most part I 
expect a lot of bible texts to be entered by hand.


>
>Do we want to default the reference system?
>
I think we may want to default refSys (what I want to explain to users 
as Work, being a class of texts) and edition (which is a particular 
member of the class of things in Work)

Patrick


>
>Todd
>

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu