Add new quote specific milestone attributes - RE: [osis-core] milestone name inconsistencies

[Todd Tillinghast]

ADD a "start" attribute to all end milestones and an "end" attribute to
all start milestones.

Although some what similar, better NOT to confuse the purpose of
splitID.

Todd

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org [mailto:owner-osis-
> core@bibletechnologieswg.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Durusau
> Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2002 1:46 PM
> To: osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
> Subject: Re: Add new quote specific milestone attributes - RE:
[osis-core]
> milestone name inconsistencies
> 
> Troy,
> 
> Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> 
> >>> I have to strongly disagree with the use of osisID to match up
start
> >>> and
> >>> end milestones.
> >>
> >>
> >> On what basis? The only reason TEI does not use ID for that purpose
> >> is that it has to be unique in the document.
> >
> >
> > Patrick, sorry, but I agree 100% with Todd on this one.  We don't
use
> > osisID to match segmented tags either.  We use splitID.  Forcing an
> > osisID causes there to be unwanted symbols in the text.
> 
> Too late! Todd, that silver-tongued devil has argued me into adding
> start/end to the <qStart>, <qEnd> milestones. We did not discuss
> milestoneStart and milestoneEnd. Should I add them there as well or
just
> just splitID? Or should I use splitID on both? (Would avoid adding
> attributes at all. Just some prose.)
> 
> Todd: What about splitID? As opposed to start/end?
> 
> 
> >
> > If Harry gets his way when we add the mechanism for defining
> > versification schemes, we will USE A REGULAR OSIS DOCUMENT to do
such.
> > This would mean all kinds of extra anchors, just because we had to
add
> > them for matching milestones.
> >
> > We have 2 very different purposes here.  I don't see any convincing
> > reason to use the same attribute for both of these purposes.  If you
> > want to avoid adding a new attribute, I think splitID is much more
> > similar to what we want to do with matching tags.  I would recommend
> > using splitID for this purpose or adding a new attribute.
> >
> > I too thought the old milestone_SE was for matching the start/end.
> >
> > I still don't get the pt and se.  I think I understand your
> > explanation, but have never heard that before, never remember
> > discussing it, and really think it is out-of-theme from the rest of
> > the schema.
> >
> > I would still argue that the mere fact that we HAVE an enumerated
list
> > of milestone types designates a PROBLEM.  None of these types has
any
> > special attributes, and I'm sure they should have.  This is the same
> > problem we have with <q> and will have with all other "generic
> > milestone"-type markup.  If a tag can be used as a milestone, then
let
> > IT be used as a milestone, or else provide a new tag with all the
same
> > attributes and behaviour.
> 
> Steve: comments?
> 
> >
> > <q who="Patrick">in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in
> > hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness --
besides
> > all the other things, what comes upon me daily: my deep concern for
> > all the osis-core members</q>
> > Oh wait, that's Paul-- almost.
> 
> ;-), yes, almost. ;-)
> 
> Patrick
> 
> >
> >     -Troy.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Any mechanism is going to have to involve either pointing, whether
> >> expressed as a ref or not, or have some sort of matching tokens.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> If PT if for presentation type and SE is for Something Else AND
> neither
> >>> is to help us match up starting and ending milestones then we need
> >>> ANOTHER attribute for the purpose of matching up milestones.
> >>>
> >>> We must NOT use osisID to match up milestones starting and endings
> >>> because we would force the inclusion of arbitrary trash in the
> >>> identifier namespace whose sole purpose is to match up milestones.
> >>> If the encoder wants to create an osisID for a milestone let them
> >>> but it
> >>> should not be required so that a pair can be matched up.
> >>>
> >>> We should have some thing like:
> >>> <p>
> >>>     <qStart end="xyz"/> text <qEnd start="xyz"/>
> >>> </p>
> >>>
> >>> If the "end" and "start" attributes are not required what good are
> >>> start
> >>> and end milestones.
> >>>
> >> What good are the paired milestones anyway? As I recall there were
> >> many calls for pseudo-containment milestones, which I personally
> >> disagree with but now we have those and paired <qStart>, <qEnd>
> >> milestones.
> >>
> >> I am really at a loss to explain why we should require end/start on
> >> matching milestones. I have no problem with adding the attributes
but
> >> see no reason to require their use.
> >>
> >> Waiting on a good reason for requiring end/start attributes
(willing
> >> to add but why require)?
> >>
> >> Patrick
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> We do not have an attribute to indicate "PresentationType" in any
> other
> >>> element and it could be determined to be useful there as well.  I
> think
> >>> we should remove milestonePT and force people to use type and
> >>> subtype to
> >>> describe the type of data the element is and figure out the
> >>> "Presentation Type" their style sheet based on the data type. I
> >>> still don't know what milestoneSE is for.  Until this morning I
> >>> thought it was for matching up the "S"tart and "E"nd of a pair of
> >>> milestones.  If no one can explain what it is for we should remove
it.
> >>>
> >>> Todd
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: owner-osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org [mailto:owner-osis-
> >>>> core@bibletechnologieswg.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Durusau
> >>>> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 12:42 PM
> >>>> To: osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: Add new quote specific milestone attributes - RE:
> >>>>
> >>> [osis-core]
> >>>
> >>>> milestone name inconsistencies
> >>>>
> >>>> Todd,
> >>>>
> >>>> Todd Tillinghast wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Patrick,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Todd
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Does <qEnd> need globalAttributes?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, linked by osisID and splitID values according to the
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> documentation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't see any purpose for splitID for a milestone since a
> milestone
> >>>>> can not be segmented.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are you proposing that we "link" <qEnd> with <qStart> with
osisID or
> >>>>>
> >>> are
> >>>
> >>>>> you refereeing to some other meaning of "link"?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Linking with osisID. Present due to globalAttributes.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Is there a reason that milestoneSe is required?  What good are
> >>>>>>>
> >>> start
> >>>
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> end milestones without a mechanism to find their partner?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't read milestoneSe as being required? Reads
use="optional"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> What I was trying to say and didn't was that I think
"milestoneSe"
> >>>>> should be required.  (Sorry of the confusion.)  Do you see any
that
> >>>>> milestoneSe should not be required?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Sorry, don't see why it should be required. I could simply want
to
> use
> >>>> milestoneStart and milestoneEnd without the milestoneSe. (This
> >>>> attribute, like milestonePt, was added at Bob's request for
pointing
> >>>> purposes.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Patrick
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Todd
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Patrick Durusau
> >>>> Director of Research and Development
> >>>> Society of Biblical Literature
> >>>> pdurusau@emory.edu
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> 
> --
> Patrick Durusau
> Director of Research and Development
> Society of Biblical Literature
> pdurusau@emory.edu
> 
>