[osis-core] paragraph break defended once again.

[Troy A. Griffitts]

Todd and Chris,
	I take it that since no one has commented on my examples that I 
provided, that you will then keep to your word and concede?

	-Troy.



Todd Tillinghast wrote:
> Patrick,
> 
> I do object to adding "paraBreak" because I think we should have only
> one way to encode things and based on Chris' earlier post it seems that
> the Lochman text can be encoded with <p> elements.  The only reason for
> adding the "paraBreak" element is to make it easier to encode texts in
> the short run.  I think we will pay the price in the long run by
> legitimizing this alternative mechanism.  
> 
> Todd
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: osis-core-admin@bibletechnologieswg.org [mailto:osis-core-
>>admin@bibletechnologieswg.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Durusau
>>Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 9:11 PM
>>To: osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
>>Subject: Re: [osis-core] paragraph break defended once again.
>>
>>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!
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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