[osis-core] RE: What is happening

[Todd Tillinghast]

See below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Little [mailto:chrislit at crosswire.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 1:20 AM
> To: osis-core at crosswire.org
> Cc: kdeblois at biblesocieties.org; 'David Landin'; 'Todd Tillinghast';
'Emma
> Canales'
> Subject: Re: [osis-core] RE: What is happening
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick Durusau wrote:
> > Fred,
> >
> > Fred Mellings wrote:
> >
> >> Whatever conclusion you all come too there should still be some
> >> mechanism to allow all of the 92 to be processed within the OSIS
core
> >> and be mapped to their relevant name/s
> >
> > I think we are still confusing several issues here. Take Judges B
for
> > instance. Both in the Hebrew and NRSV, Judges has 21 chapters. In
OSIS,
> > both would have the name Judges and indicate in the header that one
is
> > the NSRV text and the other is the BHS text.
> >
> > So, what is the difference with Judges B? Why should it be treated
> > differently? I realize that ParaText does treat it differently but
that
> > is not a sufficient basis for deciding to treat it differently from
the
> > book of Judges from the Hebrew or English text.
> 
> The duplicated books are all instances of books from two different
> sources that are included in Rahlfs' LXX. Most are cases of there
being
> a more standard version and a version with slightly different text or
> versification.
> 
> I don't really see any good reason to define IDs for any of the
> duplicate books. They're just multiple instances of the same books we
> already defined.
> 

Well stated.  I agree.

> I think we MAY want to define a new book ID for Greek Esther. We
really
> shouldn't need to. "Esth", in my opinion, is sufficient for both. And
> SBL does not define a separate abbreviation for Greek Esther. And most
> Bibles will have only Esther from Hebrew or Greek (not both, as the
NRSV
> happens to have). But there seems to be frequent confusion in this
> matter, often resulting in the incorrect assignment of "AddEsth" to
> books that represent Greek Esther. Anyone else have an opinion on this
> issue.
> 

I don't think we need to add an additional OSIS Bible book name, but we
may need to document the appropriate usage for the different scenarios.

We MAY want to remove addEsth and deal with differences as different
reference systems.

> In general I think we ought to move something akin to the list I drew
up
> at
>
http://web.archive.org/web/20030801225807/www.bibletechnologieswg.org/os
is
> /specs/BibleBookNames.html
> into the documentation. (I hope this page will be available soon,
since
> it seems to be down ATM.)
> 

Yes.

> --Chris

Todd