[osis-core] IDs and pointers and refMarks, Oh My!

[Harry Plantinga]

Troy et al,

My thinking on IDs and pointers at this point has all the clarity
of used motor oil. I'll try to work it out a bit.

Let's say we have Augustine's Confessions, which has 13 books,
each book several chapters, and each chapter several sections. Let's
say we somehow have specified conventional IDs for referring to this
work like the following: Book 10, chapter 3, section 5 is X.iii.5.

How do I say that an element is Augustine's confessions X.iii.5?

  <div id="X.iii.5"> together with something in the header which
    says that this is augustine.confessions?

How do I say that an element is a _commentary_ on Augustine's confessions
X.iii.5?

  <div annotatedWork="augustine.confessions.X.iii.5"
annotationType="commentary">?
  [if this isn't proper osisPointer syntax, sorry...]

What else do we need to do?

-----------------------------------------------------------------


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