[osis-core] scripCom

[Patrick Durusau]

Troy,

I think the inRef and outRef syntax is a hold over from when we were 
talking about validating the content of pointers and so it made a 
difference if you were pointing into an OSIS document (we could 
validate) versus pointing at a non-OSIS document from within one, we 
could not validate. I am not sure the distinction is meaningful with our 
current syntax.

I never saw the use of the <verse> element as having anything to do with 
the identity of a text (either as Bible or non-Bible) and am not sure 
why the use of an element would make any particular difference. Profane 
poetry has verses but that does not make it a biblical text.

While we have mainly focused on Bibles and the encoding problems found 
there, I don't know of any reason why OSIS encoding would not work for 
other texts, such a bible commentaries.

Questions we can answer:

"Who am I"  -  XML ID (or ID like attribute)

"What am I" - Possibly type attribute

"Where do I point" - The current reference syntax

I understand Harry to be asking to add:

What class do I belong to - commentary, dictionary, etc.

What is my relationship to the thing I point at - comment on, refutation 
of, etc.

Possibly (but I don't think Harry has pushed it this far):

What class of thing am I pointing at - the mirror of the what class am I 
question

What is its relationship to me - is it a comment on me, etc.

Probably don't need to go this far in 1.1, need to leave a little bit 
for another trip to Washington. ;-)

Patrick

Troy A. Griffitts wrote:

> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

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