[osis-users] OSIS cross-reference questions
DM Smith
dmsmith at crosswire.org
Sat Nov 24 10:07:03 MST 2012
Haven't been able to reply earlier.
On Nov 19, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Markku Pihlaja <markku.pihlaja at sempre.fi> wrote:
> Thanks DM,
>
> (Others are also welcome to share their views! And also to check the one new question at the end, after the second "-----------" marker)
>
> That didn't quite solve my problem. You say I shouldn't nest references. But I do need some way of making a difference between a compound reference and a list of separate references. An example:
>
> In Gen. 46:12, we have three references:
> Gen. 38:7,10; Num. 26:19-21; 1. Chr. 4:1
>
> The first one, to Gen., is indeed just one reference even though it refers to separate verses. As far as I can figure out, an unnested note wouldn't be able to tell whether Gen.38.7 and Gen.38.10 are parts of the same reference or two independent references:
> <note type="crossreference">
> <reference osisRef="Gen.38.7">Gen. 38:7</reference>,
> <reference osisRef="Gen.38.10">10</reference>;
> <reference osisRef="Num. 26:19-21">Num. 26:19-21</reference>;
> <reference osisRef="1Chr.4.1">1. Chr. 4:1</reference>
> </note>
>
> Of course, to a human those first two refs would probably look like one reference, but the computer needs to rely solely on the markup and not what's between.
Close. The osisRef range has to have 2 osisIDs separated by a dash. So, Num.26.19-Num.26.21. Also, the separator for an osisID or an osisRef is never a colon, but only a period.
>
> If, on the other hand, I list that as three subsequent notes, the semicolons wouldn't be embedded in any tags and thus would be rendered even when reference notes should be hidden.
>
> <note type="crossreference">
> <reference osisRef="Gen.38.7">Gen. 38:7</reference>,
> <reference osisRef="Gen.38.10">10</reference>
> </note>
> ;
> <note type="crossreference">
> <reference osisRef="Num. 26:19-21">Num. 26:19-21</reference>
> </note>
> ;
> <note type="crossreference">
> <reference osisRef="1Chr.4.1">1. Chr. 4:1</reference>
> </note>
>
> I guess it is also true what you wrote about note tags: they represent the marker(s) in the text (even though most of our printed Finnish Bibles don't include markers within the text; the notes are listed after certain passages with references to the position of the note instead). Also this would imply that I shouldn't use the later example with three subsequent notes.
This won't work as the ; are now part of the main text. It appears here that you are trying to get three foot note markers separated by semi-colon.
The <note> element specifies the placement of a footnote marker and it's content is the content of the footnote. It is really as simple as that.
If you want one note for the entire verse, then have one. That is one footnote marker, then have one per verse. If you want to have more, then have more. Having adjacent notes is considered bad form, but it is allowable. However, you can't specify separators between adjacent footnote markers.
>
>
> You mentioned one more approach, listing all parts of the compound reference in one osisRef. That would seem to work somehow:
>
> <note type="crossreference">
> <reference osisRef="Gen.38.7 Gen.38.10">Gen. 38:7,10</reference>;
> <reference osisRef="Num. 26:19-21">Num. 26:19-21</reference>;
> <reference osisRef="1Chr.4.1">1. Chr. 4:1</reference>
> </note>
>
> This osisRef / osisID style, however, is missing from Durusau's User Manual. There is section "15.4 Grouping" that does give an example of such notation with osisIDs, but "Appendix J - osisIDs: Construction Rules" doesn't say anything about this. And I've found nothing whatsoever about osisRefs like this. So is this certainly valid markup?
It is valid, but not a good idea. There is a wide variety of software that handles OSIS, e.g. SWORD and JSword. The former is focused on chapter at a time presentation, so expects each reference to be a contiguous range, presenting the chapter and perhaps highlighting the first contiguous range. JSword takes each reference as a verse list and presents the contents of each of the verses.
At this time, I'm not aware of other open source OSIS software.
>
> Also, assuming "Gen.38.7 Gen.38.10" would be a valid osisRef, would also for example "Gen.38.7 Gen.38.10-Gen.38.12" be? We also have a few compound references consisting of separate verses AND one or more ranges.
Yes this is valid. Any number of verses and ranges are allowed in osisRefs.
>
> -----------
>
> As for my question number 3) - the subdivision of a referenced verse - I tried to explain that there is no automatic or even easy manual way of determining where each subdivision of the verse begins. We would need a Bible content expert to do that, and we don't have one for this project.
>
> So referring to a fine-grained position of a verse is no option since we don't know where each exact position would be.
>
> I'll refine my question:
> Is there any way of determining a "vague" division of a verse? For example, does the extension part of an osisRef always need to have a corresponding osisID somewhere? Or could we have a verse like this:
> <verse osisID="Xxx.2.14" sID=.... />
> Some text here. Some more text here. Even some more text here. And more and more text.
> <verse eID="... />
>
> and then have a reference like this:
> <reference osisRef="Xxx.2.14!c">Xxx 2:14</reference>
> with just the osisID "Xxx.2.14" declared but not "Xxx.2.14!c"?
>
> I know this is vague, but so is our current notation, and I'm trying to find some means of including the info in the current notation also in the markup. My plan B would then be to just encode all the references to the whole verse and let only the | separators indicate to the reader that the references point to different parts of the verse, just as in the printed versions now.
Yes. This allowed. Any work can have references to another work using the reference system of that other work. As a result, there is no required referential integrity between an osisRef and an osisID.
>
>
> -----------
>
> And now for one new somewhat related question.
>
> We also have something that could be called indirect references. Our notation
> Gen. 24:7+
> tells us that this reference doesn't refer to Gen. 24:7 itself, but it shares the references listed for that verse instead. For example, this Gen. 24:7 has references:
> <note osisID="Gen.24.7!crossReference">
> <reference osisRef="Gen.50.24">Gen. 50:24</reference>;
> <reference osisRef="Deut.1.8">Deut. 1:8</reference>;
> <reference osisRef="Josh.1.6">Josh. 1:6</reference>;
> <reference osisRef="Judg.2.1">Judg.2:1</reference>
> </note>
>
> Now when another verse lists "Gen. 24:7+" as its reference, it means that this reference list should be used as the reference list for this verse, too. Unfortunately replacing the plus notation with the complete list isn't an option here - apparently the fact that these verses share the same references is of importance itself.
>
> In normal cases, this would probably be rather simple: refer to the note in Gen. 24:7 with
> <reference osisRef="Gen.24.7!crossReference" ...>Gen. 24:7+</reference>.
>
> But things get tricky when the referred verse in the plus notation is more than a single verse. We have notations like
> "Deut. 4:41,43+". or "Gen. 15:19–21+".
>
> We might be able to cope with the first one, assuming the "Grouping" notation discussed earlier is valid. But is it ok to add the sub-identifier "!crossReference" to an ID like this: "Deut.4.41 Deut.4.43", and where do I add it?
>
> But it gets worse with the latter notation, since ranges aren't allowed in osisIDs - and thus I also can't create an osisRef "Gen.15.19-Gen.15.21!crossReference". Or that osisRef might still be valid, but at least the corresponding osisID wouldn't, and thus that reference wouldn't make sense.
>
> One solution would obviously be to use the osisID of just the first verse - that would mean "Deut.4.41!crossReference" or "Gen.15.19!crossReference" in my examples. But that is not possible since there might already be references for that verse alone. Also, omitting the other verses from the ID would mean that nothing at all in the markup would tell that this note is related to more than one verse:
> <note osisid="Gen.15.19!crossReference">
> <reference osisRef="Exod.3.8">Exod. 3:8</reference>
> </note>
>
> Any ideas?
I think that you are free to encode it as you like. However, software that I'm familiar with won't handle exotic uses of OSIS.
I'd suggest that you'd determine why the master text has it that way and to what you are targeting the OSIS and how to best represent it in OSIS. I'd suggest that you fully encode the note in both spots and somehow indicate either in markup or text that the list is the same as in another location.
>
>
> Phew, these things are complicated to explain in an understandable manner... And impossible to do it with only a few short lines.
>
> Once again, thanks in advance to those who take the effort of reading all this!
>
> Markku
>
Final suggestion, think of markup as a language. You are translating from one language (the master text) into another language (OSIS). The translation, as you are finding out, is not one-to-one, but rather thought-for-thought. It sounds like your master text is structured for print-only. OSIS is meant to be neutral to the target, not presuming paper, phone, tablet, computer, ....
If your goal is to preserve all the markup and its semantics from the master in OSIS, you'll probably be frustrated.
Hope this helps.
In Him,
DM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2012/11/14 DM Smith <dmsmith at crosswire.org>
>
> On Nov 14, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Markku Pihlaja <markku.pihlaja at sempre.fi> wrote:
>
>> I'll also need to return to some questions that already got answered ages ago - halfway to meet my final needs, as it now turned out.
>>
>>
>> 2012/4/26 David Troidl <DavidTroidl at aol.com>
>>> 1)
>>> How should I encode cross-references to non-contiguous verse ranges? For example, I have this reference (in our standard notation): Matt. 27:17,22. This is formally just one reference to verses 17 and 22, not two separate references. OSIS requires that "a single osisRef cannot identify a discontiguous range of a work". So how should this be done? Making one note that contains two references might be a step towards what I want, but there would still be two separate references.
>> Here is the way to encode discontiguous references:
>> <note type="crossReference"><reference osisRef="Matt.27.17">Matt. 27:17</reference>, <reference osisRef="Matt.27.22">22</reference></note>
>>
>> So, when I have a list of separate references, some of which are non-contiguous ones such as above, should I create a nested note to contain the different notes?
>>
>> For example, if I have the following three references for one verse:
>> Matt. 27:17,22 ; 2. Sam. 7:16; Matt. 9:27
>>
>> should that be coded as:
>>
>> <note type="crossreference">
>> <note type="crossreference">
>> <reference osisRef="Matt.27.17">Matt. 27:17</reference>,
>> <reference osisRef="Matt.27.22">22</reference>
>> </note>;
>> <note type="crossreference">
>> <reference osisRef="2Sam.7.16">2. Sam. 7:16</reference>
>> </note>;
>> <note type="crossreference">
>> <reference osisRef="Matt.9.27">Matt. 9:27</reference>
>> </note>
>> </note>
>
> No. Don't nest.
> You can also use references such as <reference osisRef="Matt.27.17 Matt.27.22 2Sam.7.16 Matt.9.27">Matt 27:17,22; 2 Sam 7:16; Matt 9:27</reference>.
> Note that some systems (e.g. SWORD Project) cannot handle this. And having 4 refs is better.
>
>>
>> Putting all the <reference>'s within just one <note> container would to me mean one reference to extremely non-contiguous verses. And if I omit the outer <note> tags, then the semicolon separators between the different notes would fall outside any note and be rendered even when notes are hidden.
>>
>> If that suggestion was right, what should we do in simpler cases where there is a group of contiguous references?Should I still enclose them in a second level of <note>'s for consistency, or would it be ok to use only one level like this (assuming here that there is no 27:22 in the first reference):
>>
>> <note type="crossreference">
>> <reference osisRef="Matt.27.17">Matt. 27:17</reference>;
>> <reference osisRef="2Sam.7.16">2. Sam. 7:16</reference>;
>> <reference osisRef="Matt.9.27">Matt. 9:27</reference>
>> </note>
>
> Just one level. Just like this.
>
>>
>>
>>> 3)
>>> Our cross-references are currently listed on a verse-by-verse basis in a separate file. Each verse might have a number of references, most of them separated by a semi-colon. However, in some cases the separator is the vertical line character, | (or the pipe sign). This indicates a fine grained division of the source verse. That's *source*, not target. For example,
>>> Luuk. 2:4-7 ¦ Dan. 1:20
>>> would say that the beginning of the referring verse refers to Luke 2:4-7, and the end to Daniel 1:20. There can be up to 4 divisions like this in one verse. However, there is no automatic way of determining what the exact division of the source verse is. In fact, in some cases even I can't read the verse and tell the division without reading the referenced verses first.
>>>
>>> This means that in any case I'll probably need to leave the OSIS coding vague in this respect. My question here: is there a way to somehow indicate the existence of this division within the tags, or is the only way to continue marking it like it was done until now, like this:
>>> <reference section1a.... />; <reference section1b.... /> | <reference section2.... /> | <reference section3a.... />; <reference section3b.... />
>>>
>>> Could that be done by using osisID's like
>>> Matt.1.1!crossReference.section1.a
>>> Matt.1.1!crossReference.section1.b etc.
>>> or is there a better way?
>> I'm not exactly clear what you are asking here. If you want to mark up the notes, without changing the markup of the Bible text, you could use word numbers within the verse, to indicate where the note applies.
>>
>> And I'm not quite clear if I got your point :).
>> Let me give you a quite precise example.
>>
>> This is Acts 3:13:
>> "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go."
>>
>> For that verse, we have three different references which are marked like this:
>> Exod. 3:6 | Isa. 52:13 | Luke 23:16
>> The | separators (as opposed to semicolons that are normally used as separators in reference lists) indicate that the Exodus reference is related to the beginning of our verse, the Isaiah reference to the middle part and the Luke reference to the end.
>>
>> As you can see, even though the reference list applies that there are three sections in the verse, there is no automatic way of determining what exactly are "the beginning", "the middle" and "the end", or sections 1, 2 and 3 of that verse. In some cases it is even unclear after you've carefully read the verse and the references and tried to use common sense based on the contents to manually figure out what those sections are. So the aim of placing the reference notes separately in the text exactly where they should appear is rather impossible.
>>
>> My question is: is there a way of indicating in a reference itself that the source of the reference is some sub-part of the verse? In this way, applications might be able to e.g. show an extra tag "from middle of verse" or something like that. Could we use subdivided osisID's for this purpose, like this:
>>
>> <note type="cross-reference">
>> <reference osisID="Acts.3.13!crossReference.1" osisRef="Exod.3.6">Exod. 3:6</reference> |
>> <reference osisID="Acts.3.13.crossreference.2" osisRef="Isa.52.13">Isa. 52:13</reference> |
>> <reference osisID="Acts.3.13.crossreference.3" osisRef="Luke.23.16">Luke 23:16</reference>
>> </note>
>>
>> and with even further fine-tuning if there were for example two references before the first "|":
>> osisID="Acts.3.13!crossReference.1.a" and osisID="Acts.3.13!crossReference.1.b" ?
>
> From memory, there is a grain part of the osisID/osisRef that can be used to indicate the code points (think characters) that comprise the sub-part. It is used like SUBSTR in many programming languages.
>
> However, If you are going to go to that much trouble then I'd suggest that you split the note into various parts and put them into the proper locations in the file.
>
> The basic idea of the <note> element is that it appears in the source at the position that you want the marker(s). If you want one marker, then you have one note. If you want 3 then you have 3.
>
> Hope this helps,
> DM
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your patience, these are rather hard to explain exactly and understandably but in short :).
>>
>> Markku
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> osis-users mailing list
>> osis-users at crosswire.org
>> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/osis-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osis-users mailing list
> osis-users at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/osis-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osis-users mailing list
> osis-users at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/osis-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/osis-users/attachments/20121124/11c9b195/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the osis-users
mailing list