[sword-devel] osisCore 2.0 docs
Sun, 09 Nov 2003 06:36:24 -0600
Well, I suppose you're entitled to your own opinion. There are
essentially two reasons why we have best practices for OSIS.
The first reason is to allow different levels of encoding. For example,
you could encode all quotations using quotation marks rather than the
<q> element. But doing so would not give users of your document as much
power as if you had followed the best practice. Nonetheless, there's
nothing inherenly wrong with encoding with quotation marks--and there's
no way to prevent it via a schema.
And that's the other reason for which we have best practices. There are
many, many practices that cannot be expressed via XML Schema, which we
nonetheless desire that people follow. Since we cannot mandate them via
XML, we must specify them via prose in best practices in the manual.
(Other varieties of schemas, like Relax NG, though perhaps more
expressive than XML Schema, still would require that we describe best
practices.) As another example, you could use the ISO-639-1 language
type to encode languages, but it wouldn't be especially useful since it
provides codes for so few languages. If you read the manual, you'll see
us require the use of the IETF language type, in line with the value on
xml:lang. You'll also see our description of how to encode language
codes not identified by the IETF in a consistent way, so that different
organizations use the same codes.
I realize that OSIS may seem complex and difficult to master, but it is
truly simpler than, for example, any modern variety of (X)HTML. The
fact is, we needed to build an XML language that can be used to
represent real Bibles and all of the other literature that would be used
along with them. For the most part, we've got that now. (The remaining
issues still being worked on are primarily for more complex Bibles with
critical apparatus/morphological tagging/etc., and those issues will be
handled in separate modules.) There are plenty of other Bible markup
standards that simply could have been adopted & converted to XML syntax
(e.g. GBF, SFM, and various proprietary formats) not to mention XML
formats like ThML & XSEM that could have been converted to XML Schema
and extended, but the Bible Technologies Group collectively decided that
we wanted something reasonably complete, broadly useful, and that would
have some potential of wide adoption.
If you think Zefania doesn't need best practice statements, you're
either making the assumption that encoders who use Zefania will somehow
intuitively know what you were thinking as you designed the language, or
Zefania is so simplistic as to not really be useful.
> in a former posting i have said that OSIS is a little bit
> overdressed. Rules for best practices is the proof for it.
> Best practices must be described in the schema definition and
> otherwise nowhere.
> the schema definition has to guarantee that i can finde each
> information in an osis file, without knowing further best practices
> In my Opinion OSIS is too diffuse................... :(
> best wishes
> Home of Zefania BibleMarkup Language and True Sharp Sword API.
> Chris Little schrieb:
>> You should probably hold off on template files for a while, or at
>> least wait until the manual is published, since it will describe best
>> practices. There are a number of items in your example that should
>> not be emulated by others. We hope everything will be well explained
>> by the manual when it is released (soon). Until then, we all have to
>> be patient. If you have specific questions, you can also email the
>> osis-user list. (See the OSIS portal for techies at WTS, linked from
>> the main OSIS page.)