[osis-core] references and self-ids Part 3 - Proposal

[Harry Plantinga]

> For the cases such as Ester and Daniel there is no hope and a divergent
> reference system must be used.  (However, even for Ester there seems to
> be hope for a unified reference system by either using the number and
> letter options for book names OR by adding the book additions to Ester.)
> 
> >From a purely technical perspective I have to go with option (a) as
> Harry suggests.  But from a usefulness perspective I want to provide a
> mechanism that would allow a large numbers of translations to share
> common reference systems.  I simple way to state this is that if a human
> can look at a reference in a translation where that is "a little
> different" and is able to determine without any clues from the
> associated text what that reference means with respect to the "standard"
> reference system, then we should find a way to accommodate those cases.
> 
> For the cases where the numbering (lettering is totally divergent) then
> an new reference system would be required.  (Different ways of handling
> Psalms, the three ways of handling Ester, etc..)
> 
> If the osisID differs from the set of characters determined by the
> translators for that verse then we may have to allow for a place to
> store the translators PRESENTATION value.  Naturally this would not be
> needed for case (a).
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Todd

It's true that there may be only two different systems for the Psalms, 
three for Esther, etc. A middle ground -- a little messier than the 
whole-bible reference system, perhaps, but with much less transformation 
data as well -- is a two-level system such as that used by STEP (or the 
CCEL).

In a two-level system, you really have a separate reference scheme for
each _book_ of the bible rather than each translation.  I.e. there may be
two different versions of psalms, Esther, EstherAdditions, GreekEsther,
Revelation-KJV, Revelation-RSV, etc. The total number of books needed 
(counting 3 for different versions of Esther, etc.) may be only 110 or 
120 to cover many popular translations.

A bible reference system (bible.nrsva, for example) then is an ordered 
list of the books of the bible in that system, e.g. Genesis, Exodus, ..., 
Psalms1, ..., Esther, ..., GreekEsther, ... 3John2, Revelation2, etc.

The two-level system has far less translation data -- translations 
between/among 120 books rather than 100+ versions -- but there's also 
something appealing about a general system that can handle any 
problems thrown at it (whether bible or otherwise) using the same 
machinery (program code).

As far as allowing simple, uniform references in most instances, 
the proposal of defining transformations between systems wouldn't be
a problem in most cases. In cases where there is no difference among 
the systems (most books of the bible) or where you are using one of 
many common translations compatible with the KJV and NRSVA, all you'd 
need to say is bible:Matt.1.3, etc.

For cases like references to the LXX, I actually find it much easier to
have divergent systems with translations defined between them. E.g. 
suppose I'm trying to mark up scripture references in the Imitation of 
Christ, which are to the LXX.  If I try to use a common system, somehow 
or other, I'm going to have to know that "Psalm 20" doesn't refer to 
the same passage as it does in the KJV.  I'll have to know to use 
"Ps.21" as an ID. I'd prefer to be able to specify "bible.lxx" as the 
default reference system and just call it "Psalm 20".

In other words, there may be more benefit to using a reference system
that conforms to the text rather than using one that conforms to a 
global standard. That way you only need to know about the differences
between systems when you are constructing the transformation document,
once for all. 

The downside, as Todd has pointed out, is that the _reader_ of the 
Imitation will see "Psalm 20" and may have the wrong psalm in mind. 
But isn't that the way it works in print as well? And you have the 
option of linking the text "Psalm 20" to Psalm 21 in the NRSVA, so
a click brings up the right psalm.

-Harry