[osis-core] Identifiers for segmented verses.

[Patrick Durusau]

Todd,

If I understood your earlier proposal, what would be the problem with 
using verseID="Troy.1.1" for all fragments of that verse? It is not an 
ID and therefore does not have to be unique. All I have to match on is 
"Troy.1.1" to recover all the parts of the verse. I would still have to 
deal with whatever elements were the fragments but that would be true in 
any case.

Does that reach the desired result?

Patrick

Todd Tillinghast wrote:

>As a "best practice" I would like to propose that when verses are
>segmented that we use the reference identifier for the whole verse for
>the segment that begins the verse (Matt.13.3) and then use the reference
>including the appropriate grain for the further segments
>(Matt.13.3:char:43(Once)).
>
>It is not appropriate to say Matt.13.3a unless the reference system of
>the translation being used has defined Matt.13.3a as a verse identifier.
>In this case the verse IS NOT SEGMENTED but there is simply more than
>one verse in this reference system that map to a single verse in other
>reference systems.  
>
>Neither would Matt.13.3.a be appropriate because unless the reference
>system has identified a four component strategy of references.
>(Josephus has a four component strategy for references (ant.3.1.1) as
>there is a Hebrew reference system for Psalms that is employs four
>components (Ps.1.1.a).  If a verse using a four component reference
>system were to be segmented then it should be referenced using the
>grain.  (ant.3.1.1@char:41(wonderful))
>
>I attempted to use this strategy in the sample of Matt.13.1-Matt.13.23
>that I sent last night.
>
>Is there any error in the references I used in that file?  (I know that
>I did not use the correct character offsets values for the references in
>the <lineGroup>.  Just lazy late a night.)  
>
>This laziness might be point to the need for a useful alternative grain
>strategy that is easier to encode.  Arbitrary comes to mind
>(Matt.13.3@arb:a) but word based would also be much easier than
>character (Matt.13.3@word:9(Once) rather than Matt.13.3@char:43(Once)).
>
>
>I am not arguing for the removal of char as a grain type or even as the
>default.  Just proposing that at least word be added as an alternative.
>
>I am also arguing that "apparent" partial verse identifiers not be used
>for segmented verses.
>
>Can we adopt the "word" and possibly "arb" as standard grain values?
>
>Can we adopt the above describe reference strategy as a "best practice"
>for references of verses that are segmented.
>
>Todd
>
>

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu