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

[Patrick Durusau]

Todd,

In a three hour con-call on digital rights. Will respond more later, but 
I am interested in hearing other responses to your proposal (plus the 
explanation herein).

Steve, Harry, Chris, Troy?

We really need to nail this and I think Todd's idea is good enough that 
we need to fully (but quickly) debate it and drive a stake in the ground 
on it. 1 September 2002 is this coming Sunday (and today is Wednesday, 
for those of you who aren't into time).

Thanks!

Patrick

Todd Tillinghast wrote:

>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
>>
>>
>

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