[osis-core] Wrapping up?

[Troy A. Griffitts]

Todd Tillinghast wrote:
> You are correct in that there was consistent support for multiple
> reference systems through milestones in the pre-Rome strategy that
> BETTER supports multiple reference systems where the points at which
> verses start and end differ between reference systems.
> 
> I am clear on the elegance of the pre-Rome strategy.
> 
> The point I was making what that if the locations of the starting and
> ending points is undeterminable because the translator(s) choose to
> translate a block of text in such a way that there are no subdivisions
> where there would traditionally have been several identifiers/verse ids
> (by one or more different reference systems).  In this case the options
> are
> 1) to take on a role similar to the role of the translator and create
> verses out of the larger block of text defined by the original
> translator(s).  Currently this could be done using milestones within a
> verse that's consistent with the original translation or by making
> several verse elements.  If there are more than two reference systems
> with differing verse boundaries in addition to the reference system of
> the work itself, then new milestones would have to be added in to
> support the third reference system.
> 
> 2) do not take on the translator like role and only attempt to map
> between the "standard" reference systems and the structure/work defined
> reference system.

Thanks for the comments Todd.  I don't feel we have the option of 
choosing #1.  Our goal is to provide a mechanism for translators to 
markup what THEY wish.  I think you probably agree with me on this one.

I think we are still dreaming up a scenerio that may not exist.  I 
believe that most, if not all, of these translations, when they say 
things like: Mark 1:1-9, are indeed mapping to some standard reference 
system, not their own.  They are not defining their own reference 
system.  They must have some standard versification in mind or else Mark 
1:1-9 doesn't mean much.

I think we are both agreeing that we need the same thing: The ability to 
mark THIS example section of the Bible as a target for any reference in 
the set [Mark 1:1 - Mark 1:9]

pre-rome says do it this way:

<verseStart ref="Mark 1:1" />
<verseStart ref="Mark 1:2" />
<verseStart ref="Mark 1:3" />
<verseStart ref="Mark 1:4" />
<verseStart ref="Mark 1:5" />
<verseStart ref="Mark 1:6" />
<verseStart ref="Mark 1:7" />
<verseStart ref="Mark 1:8" />
<verseStart ref="Mark 1:9" />
This paragraph is the text of Mark 1:1 thru Mark 1:9
<verseEnd ref="Mark 1:1" />
<verseEnd ref="Mark 1:2" />
<verseEnd ref="Mark 1:3" />
<verseEnd ref="Mark 1:4" />
<verseEnd ref="Mark 1:5" />
<verseEnd ref="Mark 1:6" />
<verseEnd ref="Mark 1:7" />
<verseEnd ref="Mark 1:8" />
<verseEnd ref="Mark 1:9" />

what does post-rome say?

	-Troy.




> 
> I believe that it makes the most sense for each Bible document to
> support a "standard" reference system (even if it has these grouped and
> fragmented sections of text that don't map nicely to the "standard"
> reference system).  And that mappings between reference systems be
> created and supported at the desired level of granularity externally
> from the document itself.
> 
> Todd