[osis-core] scripCom

[Patrick Durusau]

Note: There is no valid ref attribute (presently) in the schema but is 
being used to avoid confusion with syntax issues.

Troy,

Troy A. Griffitts wrote:

> 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.

Yes, quite definitely on different pages! But, as importantly, your 
posts are moving us towards understanding what pages we are on! At step 
towards getting on the same page and that is most welcome! (Sorry if my 
convoluted prose has added to any of the confusion!)

>
>
> 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.

I don't think this is what Steve is saying here. It is the ref attribute 
that doing the "I am" duty here. That it is inside a verse is just 
happenstance of the example.

For example, if I were encoding Karl Barth's "Church Dogmatics" I.I The 
Doctrine of the Word of God, the first section could say "I am" as follows:

<div 
ref="Barth.ChurchDogmatics.I.I.I.1"><title>Introduction</title>....</div>

(Don't use this as an example of how to properly cite this work, that is 
my ad hoc reconstruction from a copy of vol. 1.1 that I have at the office.)

The ref in this case is claiming to be part of Barth's Church Dogmatics 
work, the "I am" function I understood Steve to be describing above.

Ah, but are you saying that:

<verse> = "I am a verse of the Bible" (an implied claim by virtue of 
being a <verse> element) and;

ref attribute = "I am this verse of the Bible" for purposes of software 
finding verses of the Bible?

So that if you are searching for verses of the Bible, you need only find 
<verse> and then examine the ref to determine which one you need?

Interesting, I had never considered <verse> as making a claim of that sort.

Not sure that <verse> can carry that semantic because of the cases where 
translations (CEV for example) use Todd's Matthew.1.2-6a to designate an 
entire range of what are considered separate verses in other translations.

Shouldn't I be able to do: <seg work="CEV" ref="Matt.1.2-6a">?

>
> 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.
>
(I think the current "I am" and pointing syntax is confusing (I have 
trouble remembering it correctly at any rate) and so will try to at 
least write an explanation and perhaps a clearer way to express it for 
discussion later today.)

Troy: Would it help the discussion (if not the syntax) if we had clearly 
separate mechanisms to say:

1. Identification (I am Matt.1.1, etc., claim for a element to be a 
particular portion of text, whatever that text is)

2. Reference (I am about Matt.1.1, etc. but clearly I am not Matt.1.1)

3. I am a reference of type (to satisfy Harry's excellent suggestion of 
typing references)

(Part of the problem I fear is the cross between ID/IDRef (which have 
certain strictures and requirement within a document instance) and the 
broader questions of identification/reference/reference-typing. 
Suggestion: Let's for today and tomorrow not worry about the mechanism, 
which is purely a syntax issue, and concentrate on expressly in long 
winded prose what we want.)

>
>>   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.
>
Disregard my statement. Confusing in hindsight even to me and not 
correct in any event.

>
> 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.

And the problem with collecting the verse references to match the syntax 
Harry suggested would be? That is I am assuming in your version of the 
MCH you could auto-generate from:

>
>
> <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:

to: <div "I am About"="Matthew 28:1-10" type="scriptCom">

Here I would use the "I am about" attribute (whatever we call it) to say 
this <div> is about Matthew 28:1-10 and is of the type commentary.

Does any of this help?

Patrick

>
> 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.
>

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