[osis-core] When an osisID is not an osisID?

[Troy A. Griffitts]

> Proposal:
> 
> For translations/texts  that do not follow a canonical reference system 
> but that do refer to such systems to document particular places in the 
> text, the structure of the text should be encoded but references to the 
> external system, whether on an element or by milestone appearing in 
> running text, should be using the osisRef attribute of type osisRef.


I think the previous way we decided to tag this was, e.g.

<verse osisID="John.1.1">
<verse osisID="John.1.2">
<verse osisID="John.1.3">
(John 1:1-3) In the beginning...
</verse>
</verse>
</verse>


I like your begin/end suggestion for basic ranges like this:

<verse beginOsisID="John.1.1" endOsisID="John.1.3">
(John 1:1-3) In the beginning...
</verse>


Seems like the CEV issue is only different in that it uses some 
non-standard marks like "John 1:3b".

To handle this, I would suggest the following:

<verse beginOsisID="John.1.1" endOsisID="John.1.3.b">
(John 1:1-3) In the beginning...
</verse>


It seems that this is a deeper level that they are defining themselves, 
and at least if we need to show "john.1.3, we can look for "John.1.3[.*]"



My suggestion to NOT use osisRef to mark these does not preclude using 
osisRef, e.g.

<verse beginOsisID="John.1.1" endOsisID="John.1.3">
<reference osisRef="John.1.1-John.1.3">John 1:1-3</reference> In the 
beginning...
</verse>

but this does not satisfy the need for a mechanism to locate sections on 
the document that 'contain' e.g. "John.1.1", for software.  We already 
have this with osisID, and I think CEV should still be required to use 
it, like all other Bibles are required to do.  This allows us to display 
the CEV in our software like any other Bible, without any special 
treatment.  Does that make sense?

	-Troy.