[osis-core] [osis-user] Re: semantics of <divineName>?

[Troy A. Griffitts]

Patrick,
	I'm sorry to disagree again with you.  I like you... Really... :)

	I'm not looking for how to make our chosen name apply most logically 
for someone not familiar with marking Bibles.  If I were, I would 
whole-heartedly agree with your proposal.

	My desire, years ago when proposing this tag, was specifically to 
handle the existing anomaly in practically all literal translations of 
the Bible.  We all talked about the best name for this anomaly, and 
<divineName> was chosen.  Using this tag for any other reference to God, 
like El-Shaddai, or for any other pseudo-divine entity like Allah, Baal, 
Asher, or any other usage, would not be for what this tag is designed.

	Now, to address the logic of the currently selected tag name...

	YHWH IS THE DIVINE PROPER NAME THE ONE TRUE GOD HAS CHOSEN FOR HIMSELF. 
  There is no ambiguity.  Any other reference to God is like calling 
Patrick Durusau, The Master of All Things "Topic Maps".  Though 
naturally everyone will truly understand this as a reference to Patrick 
Durusau, no one would ever consider this your proper name.  Just the 
same, YHWH is God's proper name.

	Again, back to the issue of OSIS...  Scriptural markup, as it exists 
today in typeset Bibles, requires only a few core tags to represent. 
One of these core tags is <divineName>, is a very specific anomaly 
(detailed in my last email), and needs a very intentional, unambiguous 
tag for this purpose.

	It's not just any 'Divine Name', it is very specifically: YHWH in the 
Hebrew, purposely modified to something other than YHWH in a translation.

	-Troy.




Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Steve,
> 
> Steven J. DeRose wrote:
> 
>> I believe Troy is right on this. I recall some long discussions about 
>> the scope of <divineName>, and I think in the end we did settle on it 
>> being used only for the tetragrammaton. At one point we talked about 
>> having types on personal names to take care of the rest, but I forget 
>> what we decided on that. I kind of like the idea of having a separate 
>> tag for non-tetra references to God, but I remember losing that 
>> one.... :)
>>
> Several problems:
> 
> 1. Incorrect/inconsistent usage: Note that several years after the 
> discussion when I was writing the users manual, I assumed the divineName 
> was just that, divineName. Not a shorthand for a single typographical 
> tradition for one word in the text. Even if the manual is corrected, how 
> many others are going to make that mistake? Noting that it is not 
> possible to test for that mistake given the number of languages into 
> which the Bible is being translated.
> 
> 2. What else will users think to use with El Shaddai, etc.? <name>? With 
> inconsistent x- attributes?
> 
> 3. Loss of ability to search for all divine names including the 
> tetragrammaton. With Chris's proposal, slightly modified, we could do 
> that as well as preserve the usage that Troy is contending for.
> 
> What if tetragrammaton is the default value for type on divineName? And 
> we insert the list of other divine names?
> 
> No loss for Troy's use case and it enables other users to use what is 
> the natural element for other divine names and to do so consistently.
> 
> That seems like a net win to me.
> 
> Hope you are having a great day!
> 
> Patrick
> 
> 
>> S
> 
>