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

[Todd Tillinghast]

Patrick,

> 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. ;-)

I actually remained fully clothed.

> 
> 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."
> 

I think that if we provide a default defaultRefSystem that in most cases
it will apply for scholars the same as for the rest of the user
community.  Also scholars can specify the default reference system they
need to use if it is different and incur no additional burden for each
reference encoded.  If they are using more than one reference system
simultaneously, then by the nature of what they are doing additional
information is required.  I don't think this creates a separate system
for scholars even though I may have made it sound that way.

> >
> >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

In this case are we still using the default reference system or are we
deriving it from the work?

> 
> 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.

I don't think it is to difficult for people to understand the notion of
a reference system when you explain it in the terms you used above AND
when they understand that there can be sets of reference identifiers
from a different class of works.  (Bible vs confessions of Augustine).

Part of my Euraka moment was that I think we are making things more
confusing by combining the idea of individual works with the concept of
a reference system for a class of works.

I also think we would be better off to name the reference system
differently than any one commonly known work (like the KJV).  I think
that Chris has often said that the NRSV would be a better source to
glean a reference systems from.  I am sure that others will either like
and dislike any work that we chose to name a default reference system
after.  If we simply name it Bible.OSIS then we get away from prior
biases and can more freely include identifiers that are not in any one
work. 

So we might say that Bible.OSIS is a set of identifiers used in the KJV,
NRSV, NIV, TEV, ...  This does not tie us to a particular work or
edition.


Regarding putting the [work] at the end:
1) When I see references to a particular work I recall seeing the work
placed at the end.  (as in "Matt 1:1 NRSV")
2) By adding something other than the identifier that plays the parallel
role of namespace prior to the ":" we obscure the fact that the
reference system is defaulted when only the [work] is present.  People,
including ourselves, are tempted to make the [work] act in the place of
the reference system rather that in addition to.

If we don't want to put the [work] at the end we could also put it just
AFTER the ":" as in refSystem:[work]canonical@grain-canonical@grain and
achieve the same purpose.

> 
> >
> >
> >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
> 
>