[osis-core] paragraph break defended once again.

[Patrick Durusau]

Troy,

Would probably need to be paraBreak since pb generally (in TEI land 
anyway) thought of as page break.

Any serious objections to adding paraBreak to the enumerated milestone 
types?

I think Troy has a good point that there will be breaks in texts that 
need to be marked and we won't know if they are containers or some other 
division.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> Patrick,
>     Nope, I agree with you that ANY recognized mechanism is better than 
> none.  I just don't feel 'x-p' is considered recognized.
> 
> I would be happy with adding 'p' to type for milestone, OR if maybe some 
> would find it easier to swallow if we didn't mentally associate the 'p' 
> element by using the same name,
> 
> type="paragraphBreak" or "pb" would be just as acceptable to me.  It's 
> the 'x-' that I'm not happy with.
> 
> Patrick Durusau wrote:
> 
>> Troy,
>>
>> I really don't think of myself as "mad" but then who would trust the 
>> judgment of a crazy person? Self-reports of sanity should always be 
>> doubted. ;-)
>>
>> I don't think anyone is saying that you should not be able to preserve 
>> what you quite correctly call a "paragraph delineation." The question 
>> is must we use something with "p" as the GI to do so?
>>
>> I know we have put a lot of stuff in the schema just to satisfy the 
>> "semantics" of users and quite rightly so. I guess I thinking that if 
>> people have to use milestones for linebreaks, or any of the other 
>> things we enumerate for milestones, is it really that much of a 
>> stretch to do paragraph breaks that are not containers?
>>
>> Hope you are having a great day!
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
>>
>>> Chris,
>>>
>>>> We do provide a mechanism for correctly marking paragraphs; it's the 
>>>> <p> element, and it's not a milestone unless you give it start & end 
>>>> IDs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed.  Our current schema only allows a <p></p> CONTAINER, and does 
>>> not allow for a 'Paragraph Break' marker.  I am arguing that it 
>>> should.  The overwhelming number of texts that I have seen all 
>>> include a paragraph break marker.  Determining a paragraph CONTAINER 
>>> is a task that we currently FORCE on the encoder of a document.  I am 
>>> suggesting that we DON'T force this on the encoder; but instead, we 
>>> should supply them with a 'Paragraph Break' construct.
>>>
>>> This is what I'm proposing.  If you disagree, that is fine.  But I 
>>> think it is the job of the AUTHOR/EDITOR to decide and explicitly 
>>> state a paragraph container, if they wish to do so-- not the job of 
>>> the encoder to guess.  As authors understand this new tool we've 
>>> given them (<p> CONTAINERS), I'm sure they will begin to use such.  
>>> But some texts will NEVER have these, including ancient fragments of 
>>> documents that might have some indication of paragraph delineation, 
>>> which we should STILL be able to encode.
>>>
>>> Again, my proposal is to allow a paragraph break semantic that IS 
>>> recognized by stylesheets, and I think <p/> would require NO change 
>>> to an existing stylesheet, and also fully conveys the intent-- a 
>>> 'paragraph break'.
>>>
>>> If no one else thinks we need an OSIS recognized 'Paragraph Break' 
>>> construct, I will think you all mad, but will concede quietly.
>>>
>>>     -Troy
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 


-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
Patrick.Durusau@sbl-site.org
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model

Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!