[osis-core] OSIS book abbreviations

[Chris Little]

On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Harry Plantinga wrote:

> No, they use numbers. So there are two different Esth.2.2 in the
> NRSVA under the system you describe. My proposal would be to call 
> them Esth.2.2 and GrEsth.2.2.

Numbers and letters, it looks like.  This presents an intersting 
versification problem since it represents the (1-16) & (1-10,A-F) 
versifications in the same document.  I hope we figured out a solution to 
that problem. :)

The sections are not exactly contiguous either.  A contaings chapters 11 & 
12.  13 is split between chapters B & C, with portions of chapter 3 & all 
of 4 intervening.  Can we handle chapters that end and then resume after 
another chapter gracefully?
 
> It also makes sense to me to have the book abbreviations match
> up with the books of the NRSVA. Having Greek Esther chapters
> 1 through 10 map to something like Esth.2.2 and the rest to
> AddEsth.12.2 seems a bit awkward.

I don't see Greek Esther as a book distinct from Esther.  Do you propose
having two Daniels also?  The fact that the NRSVA has translations from
both just means it has two versions of the same book, not two distinct
ones.

I believe Esther ought to have as many chapters/verses as the Greek 
version, since the verses correspond & it doesn't require mapping for the 
canonical portion.  The strictly apocryphal chapters should also map to 
AddEsth, but one shouldn't label them as such unless they are explicitly 
being encoded as a separate book.

I see both Esthers as the same book.  In my opinion, one of the worst 
design decisions made with STEP was creating a new book for every single 
book that had a different versification scheme.  They ended up with 
something like 30 extra books that didn't need to be there if they had 
separated the notions of book & versification scheme.

This is a bit similar to the two endings of Mark problem we had, but I 
don't remember how we decided that one was solved?  Did we say to mark 
them as variants?

--Chris