[osis-core] Post-Rome questions

[Chris Little]

Patrick & others,

My schedule is clearing up a bit so I will have time starting this
weekend to update the sample docs to the newest schema and start raising
more informed objections. :)  Have an SFM to OSIS Perl script (for the
pre-Rome schema) that I'll update & post too.
 
> >1) Now that 1.0 is completed, can we add the emph element & rend 
> >attribute?  Pretty please?
> >
> For what use case?

My use case is marking emphasized text--text that is bolded, italicized,
underlined, etc. for no discernable reason other than to draw emphasis.
So I would agree emph is preferrable to rend, with a type attribute for
bold, italic, etc.  If we don't want emph, we can use seg as you
described, but in most cases, the significant detail to be marked up is
that they denote emphasis.


> >3) Do we really need the "amplified" value for transChangeOSIS?  This

> >seems to be exclusively for use on the Amplified Bible, but I
wouldn't 
> >use it if I were encoding that translation.  Amp has 4 types of text 
> >with distinguished markup: italicized words indicating added words 
> >(transChangeOSIS added), bracketed verse cross-references (notesOSIS 
> >citation), bracketed words/phrases for clarification (notesOSIS 
> >explanation or transChangeOSIS added depending on the specific 
> >occurrence), and parenthesized words/phrases to indicate shades of 
> >meaning.  This final type is the "amplified" part and would  (IMO)
best 
> >be marked with notesOSIS explanation or optionally a new  amplified
note 
> >type.  But since the "amplified" text is not part of the  text
proper, 
> >it should definitely be put into a note element of some type rather 
> >than a transChange element.
> >
> Comments?  
> 
> But it is marked as not being part of the text proper by virtue of its

> being marked as transChange is it not? Just as added is not part of
the 
> text proper, at least in the sense of being part of the original. Or
are 
> you saying we need to distinguish between the words "added" IN a 
> translation but still attempting to represent the original text and 
> words that are "added" TO a translation to make the translation more 
> clear? Not sure that is a meaningful distinction but I can see it, if 
> only dimly.

Here's Matt 1:1 of the Amplified Bible:
The Book of the ancestry (genealogy) of Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the
Anointed), the son (descendant) of David, the son (descendant) or
Abraham. [Ps. 132:11; Isaa. 11:1]

The text in parenthesis is the "amplified" text and as you can see, it's
really a form of in-line notes.  If you were reading the text aloud, you
would probably skip over the amplified text.  I think my suggestion
would be either that "amplified" belongs to notesOSIS rather than
transChangeOSIS or even that these notes could use the "alternative"
note type that we already have.


--Chris