[sword-devel] OSIS 2.0.1 modules available
Michael Paul Johnson
Fri, 06 Feb 2004 10:31:46 +1000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
At 09:18 06-02-04, Chris Little wrote:
>Michael Paul Johnson wrote:
>> Of course, this does bring up a question. Should overlapping verses
>> ever be allowed? I would hope not, but the syntax would seem to
>> it. Perhaps something should be said in the documentation about
>> Actually, the content of sID and eID markers on verse elements are
>> entirely redundant (assuming you don't overlap verses), but someone
>> might actually look at them, so I would rather have them be useful.
>> intention was to make them the same as the osisID of the first
>> of the verse bridge set (which is the only verse in the case of
>> normal verses), as you suggested.
>In most cases, you won't have overlapping verses. However, if you
>multiple versification schemes in a single document, you can have
>overlapping verse containers. There may even be some cases where you
>find verses embedded within other verses, in the deuterocanonicals,
>depending on how you do translation.
Interesting... 3 John 14-15 is a good example of an overlap between
two schemes. (Check the NIV vs. the CEV, for example.) I had thought
that the way to do that was to just choose one scheme per translation,
and then use an external mapping back to and from a "standard" scheme
to facilitate synchronized viewing of multiple translations. For
example, if I selected 3 John 15 in the CEV (or NRSV, or UBS4 Greek
NT, etc.), I would expect to see 3 John 14 in parallel windows showing
the KJV, ASV, WEB, etc. The last part of verse 14 should be the same
as verse 15, in this case. Most of the time, the variant schemes are
the same (or maybe off by one in the case of some Hebrew verse
numbering in the Psalms), so it would probably be easier to stick with
an external versification scheme. I guess this is an area that could
use some more clarification in OSIS.
>I saw an "x-SIL-ENG" in the <osisText> element of the WEB. I'd like
>release a nice, complete (at least for the language portion of the
>list of what code to use for which language by the time we have OSIS
>ready. If everyone kind of sticks to that, we'll all be speaking the
>Since SIL (and maybe LINGUIST) codes are being adopted into ISO, the
>whole issue should go away relatively soon.
"Complete" is the key word. <grin>
>I think most of us who've worked on the standard are only part-time
>computer geeks. We manage to pack an unusually high percentage of
>linguists and people who work in translation into the room when we
>about this stuff. (I don't know that he have any translators, but we
>have translation checkers from UBS, folks from IPUB at SIL, and
I live, work, and breathe Bible translation in a field setting in
Papua New Guinea. Perhaps that colors my perception of things. I
rather hope it does.
>Using typographic quotes isn't invalid. It just fails to meet one of
>the lower levels of conformance.
Great. I need to be a nonconformist, here. It would be nice if I felt
like I could fully support the OSIS standard, and if I could regard
higher level of conformance as better, but I don't right now.
>> Of course, only a hard-core computer geek would manually edit
>> OSIS Scripture texts (i. e. for a new translation) with nothing but
>> text editor, so I'll wait to see if anyone generates a Scripture
>> editor that generates OSIS text that is easier to use than the
>There's going to be an MS Word 2003-based OSIS export facility
>(developed by CCEL). Also, an upcoming version of Paratext should
>support OSIS export (and notably, should support at least some degree
>note type specification, since USFM has the facility for that).
I look forward to testing those, and if they work well enough, helping
people here put them into practice.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (MingW32)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----