[osis-core] Paragraph/verse containers
Todd Tillinghast
osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
Tue, 4 Nov 2003 17:17:12 -0700
Troy, Chris, and Patrick,
At the meeting in TX where we did away with the "split" attribute, a
part of the conclusion was that when section and paragraph structures
where present that _best practice_ REQUIRES that the book/chapter/verse
hierarchy be encoded as milestones.
The driving reasoning behind the above decision was that if we _allowed_
multiple mechanisms/encoding styles that software would have to support
both.
The reason that I encoded the CEV with <verse> milestones is because
_best practice_ dictates it, given the structures present in the CEV.
To set the record straight, I AM NOT focused on rendering entire Bibles
and AM more focused on letting the user interact with scripture AND will
likely see the most common access _use case_ be based on references
(verse containers) rather than by paragraph and section containers.
I CAN believe that the NASB does not have any cases where a verse
overlaps a paragraph, but I am a little bit surprised. IF this is true,
then I continue to suggest that it is more of the exception than the
rule.
I don't believe that we established best practice for quotes but I
suspect that we will agree (rare as that might be) that quotes should be
encoded as milestones when they over lap other hierarchies, either BCV
or BSP.
It is certainly possible to encode an OSIS document that does not
conform to _best practice_, but it should not be included in the user's
manual. (Both BCV and BSP are _best practice_.)
Possibly where Troy and I are coming from different angles, is that I
believe that an _authoritative_ OSIS encoding of each translation should
be encoded by the copyright holder. For cases where there is no
copyright holder because the text is in the public domain, I would hope
that groups like Crosswire, the SBL, and possibly a couple of other
similar organizations would encode those texts and offer _authoritative_
encodings.
Troy, do you see multiple parties encoding the same text for different
purposes and thus varying amounts of detail in the encoding and
differing hierarchies?
Do we have differing understandings/awareness' of the decision in TX
that _best practice_ requires that when sections and paragraphs are
present and they overlap the BSP hierarchy that the chapter and/or verse
elements MUST be encoded as milestones?
Todd
> -----Original Message-----
> From: osis-core-admin@bibletechnologieswg.org [mailto:osis-core-
> admin@bibletechnologieswg.org] On Behalf Of Troy A. Griffitts
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 7:49 AM
> To: osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
> Subject: Re: [osis-core] Paragraph/verse containers
>
> Patrick,
> Thanks for your comment from France! You should be out enjoying
the
> surrounding!
>
> I think the real focus is NOT contemporary translation methods.
I
> just
> finished encoding the NASB and used verse containers.
>
>
> THE REAL DIFFERENCE IMO is the _USE_ of the encoded document. I
> WILL
> ALWAYS use verse containers internally in my software and BREAK
> PARAGRAPHS, as it stands right now.
>
> The reasons:
>
> 1) Todd is focused on rendering entire Bibles.
> 2) I am focused on letting a user interact Scripture.
>
> In my world users give me verse containers like John.1.1 or
> John.1.1-John.1.9. I have to go retrieve these containers.
Everything
> is centered around these containers.
>
> Now, as Steve and others have pointed out, there are VERY VALUABLE
> applications of paragraph CONTAINERS for DIGITAL textual content
> analysis, but most of my users do ANALOG textual content analysis :)
> Nonetheless. I hope to add more 'paragraph' centric search abilities
> and the like. But 99% of my processing is done on verse containers,
and
> even if that changes to 90% in the future, I will still remain verse
> container-centric.
>
>
> Just to sum up my perfect world: I would love for all Bibles to mark
> paragraph containers. Even if they did, I would still choose to use
> verse containers and use milestones to mark paragraphs.
>
> -Troy.
>
>
>
> Patrick Durusau wrote:
> > Chris,
> >
> > Todd can answer for himself but from my conversations with him I
suspect
> > that he thinks that the KJV is an anomaly in terms of modern
translation
> > practices which tends to favor structures that cross verse
boundaries.
> >
> > Whatever the merits of modern translation practice, there are a lot
of
> > historical texts that do not follow that practice.
> >
> > Since I was using his text as a sample, I was simply following what
he
> > had entered. We now have a couple of more weeks on the users manual
and
> > I will have time to "cook" the examples to be more focused than
looked
> > like I would have time to do with the original schedule.
> >
> > Should have copious notes that direct a user to more advanced
treatment
> > of some issues, like verse boundaries. I really dislike works that
force
> > the reader to hunt for material relevant to their problems. Perhaps,
not
> > in the first beta release, we need to have indexes something like:
Guide
> > for Encoding Modern Translations, Guide to Encoding Classic
Translation
> > and the like, being pointers to the relevant materials on each one,
> > perhaps not in the same order as presented in the manual.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Hope you are having a great day!
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > Chris Little wrote:
> >
> >> Todd,
> >>
> >> It sounds like you're advocating using milestones everywhere all of
> >> the time, at least for <verse>. If that were our desire, why would
we
> >> have included <verse> as a container at all?
> >>
> >> The KJV is every bit as complex as any other Bible in terms of its
> >> needing milestones to mark structures such as quotations, which
will
> >> cross verse boundaries. But the real issue here is to make the
> >> example as simple as humanly possible. To that end, I think it
should
> >> be limited to containers. From that point, the manual can build
more
> >> complicated structures and detail to the user why to use milestones
> >> instead of containers in certain circumstances, etc.
> >>
> >> --Chris
> >>
> >> Todd Tillinghast wrote:
> >>
> >>> Chris and Patrick,
> >>>
> >>> I think we would be doing a disservice to the newbies if we were
to
> take
> >>> out the milestones. Better to start them off right and not have
to
> >>> relearn later. Most real Bible's other than the KJV will require
the
> >>> use of milestones?
> >>>
> >>> Let's show them a real but simple example.
> >>>
> >>> Todd
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: osis-core-admin@bibletechnologieswg.org [mailto:osis-core-
> >>>> admin@bibletechnologieswg.org] On Behalf Of Chris Little
> >>>> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 12:17 PM
> >>>> To: osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: [osis-core] Esth. corrected
> >>>>
> >>>> Patrick,
> >>>>
> >>>> Why not just use container markup for the <verse>'s instead of
the
> >>>> milestones (to avoid scaring the newbies). I'd also recommend
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> stripping
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> out anything that uses the attribute extension mechanism
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> (x-copyright).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> If we're giving it in our "minimal" example, it implies we
omitted
> >>>> something very basic.
> >>>>
> >>>> --Chris
> >>>>
> >>>> Patrick Durusau wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> osis-core mailing list
> >> osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
> >> http://www.bibletechnologieswg.org/mailman/listinfo/osis-core
> >>
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> osis-core mailing list
> osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
> http://www.bibletechnologieswg.org/mailman/listinfo/osis-core