[osis-core] scripCom

[Troy A. Griffitts]

Harry,
	I agree wholeheartedly with the function you desire.  If we use a common 
"I am this" element (for which I feel we had designated 'verse'), we 
should allow some type of _meta_designation_, as you have suggested. 
Suppose for a moment that we changed the element name from 'verse' to 
'refMark'.  Would these three examples be valid?

<refMark work="KJV" type="Scripture" refID="John.1.1">In the 
beginning</refMark>
<refMark work=MHC type="scriptCom" refID="John.1.1">Here, John 
shows...</refMark>
<refMark work="WebstersUnabridgedDict" type="lexEntry" refID="markup 
language">
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
</refMark>

These common "I am this" tags, allow for a common <reference work="MHC" 
refID="John.1.1">-like tag to point to any OSIS document.

We had previously stated that <verse> *would* be used to mark works 
other than Bibles, like Josephus, Early Church Fathers, etc.  Not sure 
if we all still concede to this; doesn't sound like it from other 
people's posts.

I think we need to show hands on how we invisioned inRef (to use our old 
term) slicing of texts (both Biblical and non-Biblical).  And how 
EXACTLY our outRef scheme was to be used to point into an OSIS document 
(hitting on range, specifically, for something like 'Mat.1')

I fear not many of us are on any one page.

	-Troy.





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?
>>
>>
>