[sword-devel] new morphology

[DM Smith]

Perhaps I'm a bit dense, I don't see how the module would grow from  
150K to 2000K. Can we do key linking? And that if it would be encoded  
into the engine that the size increase would be small.

As to adding parsing/normalization to JSword, we already do that wrt  
Strong's numbers and also Devotional keys. It is no big deal.

-- DM


On Jan 26, 2008, at 7:06 PM, Chris Little wrote:

> We gave a new Greek morphology in the pipeline to replace virtually
> all of our existing morphologies, and I would be interested to hear
> people's opinions or concerns, considering it does represent a certain
> amount of change from the current system.
>
> Presently we have 3 morphologies in use:
> 1) Robinson is used in Bibles like Byz that come from Maurice  
> Robinson.
> 2) Packard is used in one or two special circumstances (LXX maybe?)
> and has roughly a subset of the Robinson tag semantics with slightly
> different encoding practices.
> 3) TVM codes appear in a few Bibles, but their actual explanation is
> not offered anywhere since Larry Pierce claims a copyright. They are
> also a subset of the Robinson system's semantics with completely
> different encoding (4 digit codes that look like an extension to
> Strong's numbers).
>
> In case it's not obvious from the above, the new morphology is based
> on Robinson's system. Our current Robinson module is based on the tags
> actually present in Byz. All of those tags were
> programmatically decoded into the existing plain English entries. The
> new morphology takes the Robinson system and generates every possible
> tag plus its plain English explication.
>
> When the Packard and TVM codes found in various modules are converted
> to Robinson format, the new Robinson module should have complete
> coverage. In fact, they should have coverage of all current and future
> possible morphology codes using the Robinson system--tens of thousands
> more than will ever actually appear.
>
> The result is that the existing 150k Robinson module would grow to 2M.
> Is that size increase reasonable?
>
> We could simply generate a list of all codes currently appearing
> across all modules, which would probably result in a module of 300k or
> less. That would handle all current codes, but might require updates
> in the future (and we wouldn't know if updates were necessary without
> going through the whole collation process over again).
>
> We could push morphology code parsing into the library as a pseudo-
> module since it's not particularly difficult to parse the codes. That
> would result in the least size gain of all but would place the burden
> of re-implementation on JSword. It would likely be the fastest
> solution but would increase the library's memory footprint a little.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --Chris
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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