[osis-core] scripCom

[Troy A. Griffitts]

I STILL feel we're all on different pages.  Let me just tell you what 
page I feel we're all on and you can correct me.


I thought all "I am this" marking in a text were to use the <verse> 
element.  These <verse> tagged sections of text would then become valid 
targets of our <reference> tag.

I think Steve has stated this same thing below:

 > A: The GNT, KJV, or any other version of Matthew 1:1:
 >
 >   <verse ref="Matt.1.1">
 >
 >   This is the "I am" case -- in effect, it means that this text claims
 > to be some version of the identified passage, and should thus be
 > appropriate as the target of any reference to that passage. This is
 > faintly analogous to XML IDs.

Question for Steve:  How would you markup "I am this" in Harry's example 
below:

 > 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?

Is this "I am this" tag what we were calling an *inRef*?


I think I may have been stating my position poorly in previous emails. 
Let me restate some of my concerns.


I think Patrick is suggesting the we mark "I am this" with ANY element 
we want using the ID attribute.  I think Harry may also be suggesting 
the same.

I think it is more coherent to keep the SAME tag everywhere (this is 
where it sounds like Steve misunderstood me) for declaring "I am this"-- 
currently <verse>, and the SAME tag (though NOT the same as the "I am 
this" tag) to designate a <reference>.


>   <ref word="Bible.NIV...." ref="Matt.1.1-Matt.1.4">

assuming:
	<reference work="Bible.NIV" cite="Matt.1.1-Matt.1.4">

I looked thru the xsd and couldn't find ref= to be valid.


>   This is the reference or outRef case, which specifically means the 
> text at this point is *not* claiming to be an edition of the identified 
> passage, but a place that is relevant to understanding it (or vice 
> versa). This is faintly analogous to XML IDREFs.


This is the inRef/outRef pair I understood, as well: <verse> = inRef; 
<reference> = outRef


I think Patrick has a different definition of inRef/outRef, as stated 
below by Patrick:

 > 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.


Steve, if I understand your statement below, I think I would categorize 
this different.

> I think, though, that we also have two possible subtypes of B:
> 
>    B1) This is a link to that passage, intended mainly to get you there
> 
>    B2) This marks content that is generally "about" that passage

I would say that a <reference> tag should look something like this 
excerpt from Matthew Henry's Commentary:


Thus doth God frustrate his enemies by frightening them, <reference 
work="Bible.KJV" cite="Ps.9.20">Ps. ix. 20</reference>.

A <reference> doesn't seem like it would include things like you list 
below, but could.


> "I am a commentary (or portion) *about* Matt.1.1"
> "I am a sermon (or portion) *about* Matt.1.1"
> "I am a reader response annotation *about* Matt.1.1"
> "I am an exposition (or portion) *about* Matt.1.1"
> "I am a poeticRendering (or portion) *about* Matt.1.1"


I think you and Patrick are both misunderstanding for what Harry is 
asking.  Matthew Henry's Commentary is divided into section like:

Matthew 28:1-10:

The Resurrection.
      1 In the end of the...
[ more commentary on Matthew 28:1-10 ]


There are many of these verse by verse commentaries-- in fact every one 
of the commentaries we have for our software is divided up exactly like 
this.

If I understand Harry correctly, he would like to tag these sections of 
text with something like:

<div id="Matthew 28:1-10" type="scriptCom">
Matthew 28:1-10:

The Resurrection.
       1 In the end of the...
[ more commentary on Matthew 28:1-10 ]
</div>



I told Harry that we used <verse> to mark these sections when exporting 
MHC for the OSIS 1.0 spec.  e.g.


<verseStart ref="Matthew.28.1" />
<verseStart ref="Matthew.28.2" />
<verseStart ref="Matthew.28.3" />
<verseStart ref="Matthew.28.4" />
<verseStart ref="Matthew.28.5" />
<verseStart ref="Matthew.28.6" />
<verseStart ref="Matthew.28.7" />
<verseStart ref="Matthew.28.8" />
<verseStart ref="Matthew.28.9" />
<verseStart ref="Matthew.28.10" />
Matthew 28:1-10:

The Resurrection.
       1 In the end of the...
[ more commentary on Matthew 28:1-10 ]

<verseEnd ref="Matthew.28.10"/>
<verseEnd ref="Matthew.28.9"/>
<verseEnd ref="Matthew.28.8"/>
<verseEnd ref="Matthew.28.7"/>
<verseEnd ref="Matthew.28.6"/>
<verseEnd ref="Matthew.28.5"/>
<verseEnd ref="Matthew.28.4"/>
<verseEnd ref="Matthew.28.3"/>
<verseEnd ref="Matthew.28.2"/>
<verseEnd ref="Matthew.28.1"/>


This is cheezy, but how we have to markup Bibles.  Steve also thinks 
this as per his quote, below:

 > Thus, for A one cannot say this is "Matthew 1:1-3"; if that is the
 > case one must encode all 3 verse references there


And I was using this same method for marking up a commentary (MHC).


Just random thoughts and requests for confirmation,

	-Troy.