[osis-core] Re: Assumptions regarding blocks of text and reference system identifiers

[Eric and Allison Albright]

Todd et al.,

If I understand you correctly, I think these are assumptions we in SIL can buy
into provided that the "standard" reference systems you referenced are
extendible. An extension mechanism declaring how the reference system differs
from a "standard" would be acceptable. As Dennis mentioned, the number of cases
where translators are simultaneously working with more than one reference system
are rare but I understand that even this case can be handled, albeit marked for
the special case that it is.

Eric


----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd Tillinghast" <todd@contentframeworks.com>
To: <osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org>
Cc: "Dennis Drescher" <dennis_drescher@sil.org>; "Eric Albright"
<eric-allison_albright@sil.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 12:25 AM
Subject: Assumptions regarding blocks of text and reference system identifiers


I am posting this both to the OSIS core working group as well as sending
it to Dennis Dresher and Eric Albright at SIL to get their feedback.

Let me propose an assumption:

A translator when constructing a translation is marking text with
identifiers based on ONE of the "standard" reference systems and that
the translator WILL LIKELY deem it necessary to both
a) split text normally associated with a single verse identifier in the
"standard" reference system into two separate blocks of text
b) combine more than one verse as well as more than one verse AND only
part of one or more verses into a single block to text where the
concepts/meanings normally associated with each of the "standard"
reference system verse identifiers are homogenized into a single larger
block of text.

It is also possible that a translator is considering more than one
"standard" reference system while translating.  Although this is a real
case, the current OSIS effort will focus on primary support for a single
reference system for identifying text and provide a secondary mechanism
to mark text with a second reference system through the <milestone>
element.  Further support for additional reference systems will also be
supported through a mapping mechanism external to the Bible documents
themselves in later developments of the Bible Technologies Working
Group.

Are these assumptions we can agree on?

Todd