[osis-core] reference systems: my thoughts - issues

[Todd Tillinghast]

Patrick,

Thanks for the response.

It seems that I may hold a different view regarding references than you
and Harry and likely Steve.

The closest analogy I can think of is the following:
There is a standard in the US for plugs and current in wall sockets.  I
can buy any AC electric device at Wal-Mart and plug it in and it works.
If I take the same device to Europe I have to have a transformer to
convert the current so that it works.  What I am striving for is to have
references that work interchangeably without having to have
transformers.  All of the Bibles I have used seem to be interchangeable
and do not require transformers.  It would seem that if I go to where
there are French speakers I will need to have a transformer for
references that I use.  (This actually happened to my brother in a group
of mixed French and English speakers.)  It seems to me that each Bible
translated is not creating a new set of identifiers but just applying
the set of identifiers used traditionally.  As such it seems to me that
we are creating a system that requires a transformer for every appliance
that I plug in the wall when the in most cases there is not
transformation at all.  In doing so we are creating documents with
identifiers and reference that require special OSIS related software.

I agree that a naming convention will not solve the transformation issue
but I do think it can identify the cases where the transformation is
"identity".

The best example would be Bible.NIV.en and Bible.NIV.sp.  Force a lookup
when simple naming can solve the issue.  (This will be my last attempt
to support this strategy.  If anyone thinks this is a good idea then
respond in the positive.)

Todd

> 
> Todd,
> 
> Let me take a stab at answering your issues (although I think others
> have done a better job than I will probably do here).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >
> > QUESTION:
> > 1) Is the workID attribute in <work> supposed to act as an alias
when
> > forming a reference?
> >
> > ISSUES:
> > 1) In the above examples I used Bible.French to imply that a French
> > reference system is in use.  I did not use FrenchBible without a "."
> > because I was trying to imply that they are works from the same type
> > (Bibles).  To me this means that there must be a mapping between the
> > Bible.French general reference system and the Bible general
reference
> > system.  The trouble I am having is that when I see
> > Bible.NIV.1993.en:Ps.45.3 I assume that I can "fall back" to Bible
and
> > still use the Ps.45.3 without having to worry about mapping.
However,
> > Bible.French:Ps.44.3 is equivalent to Bible:Ps.45.3.  In some cases
we
> > seem to mean that the identifier to the right of the ":" could be
used
> > with any level of "granularity" of the identifier to the left of the
> > ":".  (When we say Bible.NIV.1993.en:Ps.45.3 we could fall back to
> > Bible.NIV:Ps.45.3 or Bible:Ps.45.3 or Bible.NIV.1993:Ps.45.3.)
> >
> 
> 
> The crux of the problem is the assumption that the "fall back" problem
> can be solved as a matter of syntax. That would be the case if there
was
> a universal mapping system to which any know bible reference could be
> mapped, sort of like a BPS (Biblical Positioning System) that any
other
> reference could be translated to and from.
> 
> The ability of software, Logos for example, to "fall back" has nothing
> to do with the syntax they have used for markup and a great deal to do
> with their mapping tables between completely inconsistent numbering
and
> versification systems.
> 
> The "fall back" that you propose would work only with software that
> presupposed the KJV (or other, take your pick) system as being the
> system to which it should "fall back." Would get some fairly odd
results
> if you used the Hungarian Bible for example as the "fall back" system.
> Even though that would work for most Bible references, as Harry has
> pointed out, there are very few other texts that have multiple
reference
> system and I suspect (personal opinion) that it is easier to simply
> create a mapping table of uniform syntax as part of the OSIS project
> than to solve this problem in syntax.
> 
> 
> 
> > It also seems that Bible.NIV.1993.en:Ps.45.3 and
> > Bible.NIV.1993.fr:Ps.45.3 could both fall back to
Bible.NIV.1993:45.3
> > and mean the same thing.
> >
> > This seems like the biggest problem that is not yet solved with this
> > strategy.
> >
> > Summary of problem: We don't know when we can fall back based on the
> > "namespace" identifier and still use the identifier to the left of
the
> > ":" and when mapping is required because we have moved between
reference
> > systems.
> >
> 
> 
> The syntax never "falls back." The software looks for a reference and
> does not find it and it has to "fall back," usually in reliance on a
> mapping table. Having a reference in some known syntax helps because
it
> can then use that to do a lookup in its mapping table to see what else
> would match.
> 
> > The only way I see to solve this problem is to define that the
> > identifier to the left of the ":" is valid WITHOUT mapping for all
"fall
> > back" levels for the "namespace".  AND force a DIFFERENT top level
> > identifier for cases where such fall back is not possible.  This
would
> > force to editions (even in the same language) that have different
> > reference systems to have a different top level "namespace"
identifier.
> > Bible.NIV.1993.en:Ps.45.3 and BibleFrench.NIV.1993.en:Ps.44.3 would
be
> > references two different editions  of the same translation that
differ
> > only by the reference system.
> >
> > Solutions?
> >
> > 2) In the second example above, I referenced Bible.NIV:Ps.45.3 from
> > within the Bible.French.LSV.  I don't see a way to create a
reference to
> > a specific work from using a different reference system.  With the
other
> > stategy we could say Bible.French[Bible.NIV]:Ps.44.3.
> >
> > A solution for this problem would be that we use work definition and
> > specify the reference system "Bible.French" in <refSystem> when we
> > declare the work Bible.NIV in the <work> element in the <header>.
> 
> 
> Note that you are seeing the reference system as something apart from
> the work in order to say we cannot "create a reference to a specific
> work from using a different reference system."
> 
> Not sure what that would mean? Seriously, not trying to be cute (hard
> enough for me to be presentable, much less cute, but that is another
> story.) Why would I want to create a reference to the NIV that was
using
> the French (lets assume it is different, not simply arrogant)
reference
> system? If what I want is a passage from the NIV, which as Harry
points
> out carries its reference system with it, why would I ever want to
point
> at it using another system? If it is the mapping between those two
> systems that is the point, it is much easier to get that with a
mapping
> table than all the declarations and syntax.
> 
> 
> >
> > 3) It seems unfortunate that the default reference system becomes
the
> > work when something other than the work is declared in <osisText>
> > attribute osisWork.  For example if we declare osisWork to be
Bible.TEV
> > then the full form of all references becomes Bible.TEV:Matt.1.1
rather
> > than Bible:Matt.1.1, when a reference to the general reference
system is
> > likely intended rather than to the specific work.  Is there a way we
can
> > separate the "default namespace" from osisWork?
> >
> 
> 
> Not sure whatever choices we make that we can prevent users from
making
> vague or incorrect references. One of the most annoying jobs I ever
had
> with doing SGML encoding was converting poorly edited academic
articles
> into SGML. Well, as you suspect, references in the text
(bibliographic)
> as supposed to have targets in the bibliography. Well, what do you do
> when it says, "see (Smith)" and there are only 5 Smith references in
the
> biliography? No dates, no way even reading the text to determine which
> Smith citation, if any of them, was intended by the author. Can't
> control intent or proper use with syntax.
> 
> 
> > 4) Since we can specify a <refSystem> for a <work> that differs from
the
> > identifiers in the works "name", what form does the "fully formed"
> > reference take if used externally.
> > Example:
> > (work is "Bible.NIV" and refSystem is Bible.French or (FrenchBible))
and
> > the fully formed reference using the previous reference strategy is
> > Bible.French[Bible.NIV]:Ps.44.3.  With the new strategy we can say
> > neither Bible.French:Ps.44.3 nor Bible.NIV:Ps.44.3 nor
> > Bible.NIV:Ps.45.3.
> > The issue being that we need a way to express a reference as a
single
> > string that includes BOTH the namespace of the work and the
namespace of
> > the identifier when the differ.
> >
> 
> 
> But if we use Harry's notion that a French version of the NIV, for
> example, is both the work and the reference system, why do I need to
> express the two separately? Yes, I know for the mapping issue but as I
> said earlier, I really don't think we can do that in inline syntax.
> Sounds good for bibles but really overburdens all the other works that
> don't need such a system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Solutions?
> >
> >
> > If we can find satisfactory solutions for these three issues I am
in.
> >
> 
> 
> Part of the problem is that you are seeing a systemic solution to the
> mapping problem, which is one I don't think many of us (including
> myself) really appreciate. The other part of that problem, though, is
> that you want to implement that solution in syntax, which I am not
> convinced is the right place for the solution to occur. I can easily
> imagine software that takes an osisID and the declarations in the
header
> and says: Because I know that the NIV (for example) has books Gen -
Rev
> and uses the KJV reference system so X-Xn map --- and Y-Yn map ---.
> 
> 
> I think I understand the issues but I guess I am differing at where
they
> need to be solved.
> 
> Patrick
> 
> 
> > Todd
> >
> >
> >


> >
>