[osis-core] OSIS book abbreviations

[Todd Tillinghast]

1) The fact that text might be presented twice in a single document
poses an interesting situation.  Previously I would have expected to see
an identifier associated with more than one element in cases where
"different" text is identified by the same identifier.  The new case is
where the SAME text is present twice in the same document.  This should
be OK since osisIDs are NOT unique identifiers for the elements they
identify.

2) If Ester is encoded in two book type divisions, what should the
osisID for the <div> be?  It seems that there would be NO osisID for
either <div> because neither contains Ester in its entirety.  Three
encoding options seem possible:
a) An osisRef could be used in both cases, but there would be no element
identified by osisID="Estr".  The trouble would be that document users
would reasonably expect to find an element with osisID="Estr" in a
document that is the entire Bible.  
b) On the other had if one of the two is identified as osisID="Estr"
then the document user would reasonably assume that the <div> contains
Ester in its entirety.
c) If both <div> elements are identified as osisID="Estr" then either
could be assumed to be Ester in its entirety.  

Thoughts?

Todd

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org [mailto:owner-osis-
> core@bibletechnologieswg.org] On Behalf Of Chris Little
> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 10:12 AM
> To: osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
> Subject: RE: [osis-core] OSIS book abbreviations
> 
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Harry Plantinga wrote:
> 
> > SBL abbreviations have Esth and AddEsth, which is the source
> > from which this thread arose.  I thought it was confusing to
> > call it AddEsth when the book actually contains all of Esther,
> > as translated from the Greek. (It might also be considered
> > slightly derogatory by those who don't consider chs. 11-16 to
> > be "additions.")
> 
> Okay, we've definitely got a difference of interpretation of the SBL
> abbreviations.  I interpret AddEsth to mean just the additions to
Esther,
> as an independent book with JUST the additions, not the portions
contained
> in both the heb & grk books (which I would interpret as covered by
Esth,
> in both cases).  I would not use AddEsth for the NRSV at all, at least
if
> I were encoding the printed edition that I have.
> 
> > As I understand your proposal, Chris, you would delete the
> > AddEsth book entirely from the list of abbreviations and
> > only use Esth -- is that right?  Or would you identify
> > chapters 11..16 of Esther (Greek) with the AddEsth bookID?
> 
> So... no, I wouldn't delete AddEsth, just use it in the manner that I
> described.  I believe that is the intent of the abbreviations.
> 
> --Chris
>