[osis-core] Identifiers for segmented verses.

[Steve DeRose]

At 02:08 PM -0400 06/14/02, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>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.

That's what I was thinking too; seems easiest, yes?

>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


-- 

Steve DeRose -- http://www.stg.brown.edu/~sjd
Chair, Bible Technologies Group -- http://www.bibletechnologies.net
Email: sderose@speakeasy.net
Backup email: sderose@mac.com, sjd@stg.brown.edu