[sword-devel] SWORD link, and other misc. comments

[DM Smith]

Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> Agreed.  To restate from my original post:
>
> It would be nice to extend SWORD linking, first to differentiate between
> self references and general Bible references, as I think adding 'self
> referencing' gives us the most bang for our... er... well, sacrifice of
> time.
>
> Would you be in favour of an implicitly defined work name, something 
> like 'self' to use as an osisRef prefix?
>   
Yes. That's what I suggested in one of my other "long winded" posts:)

I'll see about creating an OSIS test module for beta that we can use for 
development.

> 	-Troy.
>
>
> DM Smith wrote:
>   
>> Troy,
>>
>> I think as a new version of Strong's dictionary is being worked upon and 
>> as people are contemplating the creation of OSIS commentaries, that we 
>> need to decide how to mark up self referential links should be done. I 
>> agree with you that we can hold off on the implementation of a more 
>> general reference mechanism.
>>
>> For a practical case, Biblical dictionaries often reference verses and other
>> In Strong's Hebrew Dictionary:
>> 00011
>> 11 Abraam ab-rah-am'  of Hebrew origin (85); Abraham, the Hebrew 
>> patriarch:--Abraham. (In Acts 7:16 the text should probably read Jacob.) 
>> see HEBREW for 085
>>
>> Also in TCR (Thompson's Chain Reference)
>> ABIGAIL
>> wife of Nabal, becomes David's wife  1Sa 25:3; 27:3; 30:5; 2Sa 2:2; 1Ch 
>> 3:1  --SEE Notable Women, WOMEN
>>
>> The Webster's dictionary is full of self references. (Who has ever read 
>> a dictionary where a word is not defined in terms of another? :)
>>
>> Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
>>     
>>> Hey DM.  Thanks for pointing out the error in the manual.  Regarless of 
>>> the manual, the specification clearly states:
>>>
>>> <xs:attribute name="osisRefWork" type="osisWorkType" use="optional" 
>>> default="Bible"/>
>>>   
>>>       
>> I did not think of looking there.
>>
>>     
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> There is a deprecation of the osisRefWork in favor of a new mechanism 
>>>> workPrefix, which allows one to associate specific paths with a workID. 
>>>> However, it is, in my opionion, an unnecessary complication for this 
>>>> discussion.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Where did you hear that "There is a deprecation of the osisRefWork"?
>>>
>>> I might understand such a thing with the inclusion of a new generic 
>>> defaulting mechanism which we've been discussing, but I don't think 
>>> anything has made it into the specification yet.
>>>       
>> It is in the manual. In the OSIS manual it states the following:
>>
>> "In OSIS versions through 2.0, specific attributes were provided to set 
>> a default work prefix for osisIDs
>> (osisIDWork on the osisText element) and for osisRefs (osisRefWork on 
>> the osisText element). These
>> attributes remain available in OSIS 2.1, but a more general defaulting 
>> mechanism has been added.
>>
>> In OSIS version 2.1 and later, the workPrefix element was added to make 
>> it possible to specify a default
>> work prefix for the attributes on any element in an OSIS document."
>>
>> The phrase "These attributes remain..., but...." to me indicate that the 
>> latter mechanism is able/intended to replace the former. Perhaps, it was 
>> badly worded.
>>
>> Even as such, I don't like having multiple default mechanisms, because 
>> it is harder to code and because Sword modules don't keep the OSIS 
>> document header.
>>
>>
>>     
>>>   The ideas for it began 
>>> when we made an attempt to address Michael Paul Johnson's concerns 
>>> regarding quote transformation for author preference and odd languages. 
>>>   I think we included the ability to give defaults for the quote tags, 
>>> with intention to open it up to any tag, but didn't think we had gone 
>>> that far yet.
>>>
>>> There is good history on the osis-core list regarding work defaulting 
>>> and it was likely a heated discussion.  I would rather not repeat the 
>>> debate here.  It is more complicated when you start hashing things out, 
>>> and when you really think about it, is there a demand to write a 
>>> reference from a book to another book?  'Type' doesn't really meet a 
>>> demand I can think of, either.
>>>       
>> I deliberately left out any mention of GenBooks, precisely because it is 
>> messy. In the other modules, the structure and meaning of the modules 
>> and their keys is fairly rigid and well-defined. In those cases, 'Type' 
>> can work well.
>>
>> I have seen some commentaries that declare that all quotes are from a 
>> particular version of the Bible, unless otherwise noted. I think it 
>> makes sense for the author of the module to declare that references are 
>> to that version and to also note those that are to a different specific 
>> work.
>>
>>     
>>> It's just not worth the hassle, in my 
>>> opinion.  I have many other high demand items on my list that seem to 
>>> put this way off the radar.  The information you've added has been, as 
>>> always, well articulated and valuable; and I'm sure will be beneficial 
>>> in the future if we ever do have a demand (as you have suggested in a 
>>> previous email about new modules drive functionality).
>>>   
>>>       
>> I agree and thank you.
>>
>>     
>>> How's the genbook support in jsword? ;)
>>>       
>> GenBook is about half done. The harder half remains :)
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
>> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>
>