[osis-core] scripCom

[Patrick Durusau]

Harry,

Its late in the day (for me, I'm an early riser) but I will be sending 
out the latest version knowing this is still an open issue. I wanted to 
try to see if I can repeat your requirements to make sure I am 
understanding them:

At the document or div level, you want to be able to identify the 
"subject" (I know loaded term but all I know to use) of that document or 
div. In other words, it is not a pointer (in the HTML or XLink sense) 
but rather an identifier of what I am about? It may also, depending upon 
the syntax, operate as a pointer but that is not its primary function?

Not sure but seems to me that should be separated from the link/pointer 
function because you might want to say: subject="Garden of Eden" for 
example, across a set of commentaries and that is probably not a valid 
pointer, at least to a canonical reference.

Certainly something you should be able to do and I agree that while a 
verse might carry a subject attribute (like the indexes that point you 
to particular verses for certain issues) I would not rely upon the verse 
to carry the information for a commentary.

Verses are not "I am this" but rather their IDs are "I am this" as I 
understand our syntax. References are a way of pointing from one passage 
to another using canonical references (OT passages in the NT for 
example) and I guess you could say there is an implicit "I am about" but 
it is really more of a way to identify intertextual references than the 
subject claim that  you are asking about.

So, the question is how do we allow elements, and at what level, to make 
claims about their "subject?" I suppose that a sermon could change 
subjects and therefore it would be reasonable to expect that the 
"subject" attribute would change.

Does validation of such "subject" claims require something other than 
xs:string? Or can we put the burden on the user of choosing a set of 
"subjects" that are meaning full?

I assume this is different from the excellent list of link attributes 
that you sent a little while ago? (Another open issue!)

Patrick

Harry Plantinga wrote:

>One drawback with using <verse> to identify
>commentary on a verse is what happens when you have
>both verses and commentary in the same document?
>
>I'd rather have a way of saying "I'm a commentary on
>verse xxx", or "I'm a sermon on passage xxx", or "I'm
>a versification of psalm xxx", etc.
>
>-Harry
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
>>[mailto:owner-osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org]On Behalf Of Troy A.
>>Griffitts
>>Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 3:31 PM
>>To: osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
>>Subject: Re: [osis-core] scripCom
>>
>>
>>>That seems reasonable; what are the types that you know of?
>>>
>>>So far we've distinguished
>>>
>>>a) Identifying a part of the document as 'being' a certain passage
>>>
>>>b) a cross-reference to a given passage
>>>
>>I think we need to decide (if we haven't yet), that <verse> is always: I 
>>am this, and <reference> is always cf. some verse (or other container 
>>based on our elaborate schemes of stuff like mat.1.1+char(5), mat.1.1, 
>>mat.1, mat)
>>
>>Is it clear that we are not reserving these "I'm this" / "cf. That" 
>>elements for Bibles.  Do we-- and have we stated clearly that we-- 
>>intend for them to be used in other contexts besides Scripture?
>>
>>
>>>It seems we need to add at least
>>>
>>>c) being commentary about a given passage
>>>
>>The reason I bring this up, is that we exported, e.g. Matthew Henry's 
>>verse by verse commentary just like a Bible, marking "I'm this" with 
>><verse> tags.
>>
>>Not sure if I like this or not, but I *do* like the idea of have the 
>>*same* elements for both a) and b) that Steve mentioned above.  It 
>>leaves one place to write code against for such operations.
>>
>>So, is there a clear distinction for a 3rd, c), type?  Or might our "I'm 
>>this" tag be used with a specific type for all kinds of documents:
>>
>><verse verseID="markup language">
>>Main Entry: markup language
>>Function: noun
>>Date: 1980
>>: a system (as HTML or SGML) for marking or tagging a document that 
>>indicates its logical structure (as paragraphs) and gives instructions 
>>for its layout on the page for electronic transmission and display
>></verse>
>>
>>
>>Does that seem strange?  Calling it verse seems a little strange to me.
>>Did we decide that it's ok to allow spaces in verseID?
>>
>>

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