[sword-devel] OSIS files where to find and any
Nelson Lim
quinton84 at gmail.com
Tue Jul 1 18:21:21 MST 2008
Thanks wolfgang.
Hi David,
actually i was in contact with goBible. I am trying to work on a native
iphone bible software, so it wouldn't really be able to built on what
goBible has done in terms of the client. I still need help trying to
understand the OSIS format though. It seems goBible converts it from a text
file to some sort of .jar file? And sword also does something like that to
their modules.
As such, I can't use sword modules nor the sword api as it the licenses
don't gel with iphone.
In Christ
Nelson
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 1:32 AM, <sword-devel-request at crosswire.org> wrote:
> Send sword-devel mailing list submissions to
> sword-devel at crosswire.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> sword-devel-request at crosswire.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> sword-devel-owner at crosswire.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of sword-devel digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: OSIS files where to find and any references?
> (Wolfgang Schultz)
> 2. Re: Why is OSIS preferred? Was Re: usfm2osis.pl (Chris Little)
> 3. Re: Why is OSIS preferred? Was Re: usfm2osis.pl (Karl Kleinpaste)
> 4. osis2mod and WoC (DM Smith)
> 5. Re: Why is OSIS preferred? Was Re: usfm2osis.pl (Chris Little)
> 6. Re: Why is OSIS preferred? Was Re: usfm2osis.pl (DM Smith)
> 7. Re: Why is OSIS preferred? Was Re: usfm2osis.pl (Chris Little)
> 8. Re: Why is OSIS preferred? Was Re: usfm2osis.pl (David Haslam)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:33:55 +0200
> From: "Wolfgang Schultz" <woschultz at googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: [sword-devel] OSIS files where to find and any
> references?
> To: "SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum"
> <sword-devel at crosswire.org>
> Message-ID:
> <3d5883060807010533w75102452s796eccb4f3d10da at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hi,
>
> there isn't a lot of pur osis material.
>
> http://www.crosswire.org/~chrislit/osis/texts/<http://www.crosswire.org/%7Echrislit/osis/texts/>
>
> wolfgang
> http://truesharpswordapi2008.bibleworkplace.de/
>
> http://www.zefania.de
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2008/7/1 David Troidl <DavidTroidl at aol.com>:
> > Nelson Lim wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi guys,
> >>
> >> I'm exploring OSIS and how it could interface with a mobile application
> >> I'm trying to develop,
> >> but I'm new and I am unable to find many resources that really talk
> about
> >> the OSIS format/how to use it/ and where to find OSIS files that I can
> >> experiment with.
> >>
> >> Any advise or help woudl be great! thanks!
> >>
> >> Warmest regards
> >> Nelson
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> > Have you seen
> > http://www.bibletechnologies.net/
> > The schema and the manual are available from there.
> >
> > http://www.bibletechnologies.net/osistext/
> > has a number of examples.
> >
> > I'm attaching FirstOSIS.xml, which is a valid OSIS document, and corrects
> a
> > few mistakes in the manual. Corrections have been submitted for
> inclusion,
> > but a new manual hasn't been issued in over two years.
> >
> > There is a kjv.xml, that illustrates OSIS done according to SWORD
> > specifications, but I don't have the address offhand. Maybe someone else
> > can fill that in.
> >
> > Peace,
> >
> > David
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 06:06:09 -0700
> From: Chris Little <chrislit at crosswire.org>
> Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Why is OSIS preferred? Was Re: usfm2osis.pl
> To: SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum <sword-devel at crosswire.org>
> Message-ID: <486A2BC1.2090902 at crosswire.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> >> ** ThML is xml, but is layered upon HTML. It does not separate
> >> presentation from content. Cross-references are ad-hoc.
> >
> > ThML is also still (I think) used by the greatest percentage of our
> > modules (though that may be changed in the future).
> >
> > Separating presentation from content is a nice idea, but I'm not
> > convinced that it is good in all cases. What happens with OSIS when a
> > Bible publisher wants to insist that certain constructs in their Bible
> > are formatted in certain ways?
>
> First, content labeled as ThML is often *not* XML--but ThML from CCEL
> probably is validated against their DTD. ThML is based on the Voyager
> Strict HTML DTD with a few TEI-inspired elements added, but naturally
> hardly anyone ever validates against the DTD.
>
> ThML remains the markup of a large percentage of our content, but that
> percentage is declining. New Bibles will always be OSIS (or plain). New
> commentaries will always be OSIS. New Dictionaries will probably be TEI
> (sometimes OSIS). New GenBooks will preferrably be OSIS or TEI, but
> might appear in ThML.
>
> The OSIS TC answer to the question of mandated rendering with particular
> markup is: use a stylesheet. The CrossWire answer is to use <hi/> for
> styling or put information in type/subType to indicate rendering. But
> the issue hasn't ever actually come up.
>
> >> * OSIS is a growing, maturing standard, addressing the short-comings of
> >> other popular formats.
> >
> > And adding some of its own (its complexity comes to mind here, though
> > possibly that is intrinsic given what it is trying to cover).
> >
> > In my view adding milestoning and so forth left the path of strictly
> > hierarchical XML. It's still valid XML, but it's not really what XML
> > was intended to do. I don't know enough to comment on whether this
> > was really necessary or if there is a better way to do it, but it does
> > mean that valid OSIS XML may not be valid OSIS (this is true of most
> > XML formats, in fact - OSIS just carries it further than most).
>
> Simple things are simple to encode. Complex things are more difficult.
>
> If you look at Bibles encoded in ThML, GBF, or Zefania, it is absolutely
> trivial to perform the conversion. You can probably encode an OSIS Bible
> from any of these formats using 1:1 element substitution., without any
> milestoning.
>
> OSIS' improvement over these formats is in its ability to encode much
> more complex Bibles as well. Milestoning is a necessity to encode
> multiple, overlapping hierarchies, such as are present in Bibles. What
> do you do with a Bible where Rev 12:17 begins in Rev 12 and ends in Rev
> 13? In OSIS, you encode it as:
>
> <verse osisID="Rev.12.17" sID="Rev.12.17"/>
> ....
> </div>
> </p>
> </chapter>
> <chapter osisID="Rev.13">
> <title>Chapter 13</title>
> <div type="section">
> <p>
> ....
> <verse eID="Rev.12.17"/>
> <verse osisID="Rev.13.1" sID="Rev.13.1"/>
>
> In other formats, you have to compromise the text. The cost of complex
> textual structure is complex markup.
>
> --Chris
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:16:08 -0400
> From: Karl Kleinpaste <karl at kleinpaste.org>
> Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Why is OSIS preferred? Was Re: usfm2osis.pl
> To: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> Message-ID: <vxk4p79bv8n.fsf at mesquite.kleinpaste.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> "Jonathan Morgan" <jonmmorgan at gmail.com> writes:
> > ThML is also still (I think) used by the greatest percentage of our
> > modules (though that may be changed in the future).
> ...
> > Will GBF continue to be supported? I seem to remember that Chris
> > reported lack of GBF support as a missing feature in BPBible, despite
> > the fact that I'm sure that I have heard statements suggesting GBF is
> > very strongly deprecated. How many modules are still GBF?
>
> A couple shell commands will give useful summaries. Refresh main and
> beta repos in your mod.mgr, then peek in ~/.sword/InstallMgr/*/mods.d.
>
> for i in plain gbf thml osis ; do
> echo $i `grep -i ^sourcetype=$i * | wc -l`
> done
>
> Main: Beta:
> plain 2 plain 1
> gbf 49 gbf 0
> thml 163 thml 6
> osis 23 osis 93
>
> The reason for the new increase in beta OSIS modules is due to the
> arrival of 41 new WBT texts 2 days ago -- almost half the beta repo in
> one shot.
>
> Significantly, a couple of really important modules (LXX, for one) are
> still distributed as GBF.
>
> (Aside: All these new WBT texts appear in GS as "unknown" language. Is
> there a mapping somewhere handy, from "ngu", "tzz", et al to something
> readable by mere mortals? I'm happy to update GS to accommodate more
> language definitions but I need a source for them.)
>
> >> * OSIS is a growing, maturing standard, addressing the short-comings
> >> of other popular formats.
>
> > And adding some of its own (its complexity comes to mind here, though
> > possibly that is intrinsic given what it is trying to cover).
>
> When I first wanted to start generating modules on my own, I didn't have
> enough context to know what was intended or preferred, and by plain
> count (with variations on the grep construct above) I found that GBF was
> far and away the leading format for Bible texts, so I generated that.
> Then I learned from reading somewhere, now long forgotten, that GBF was
> on the way out, and that made ThML a really good choice, especially
> considering its huge majority overall and (then) substantial majority in
> Bible texts over OSIS, still not having found any particular source of
> info for what was preferred.
>
> >From then to now, all I generate is ThML. I encountered the OSIS
> preference by dumb luck somewhere along the way -- this was closely
> related to finding the forums by dumb luck, because there was no linkage
> to them at www.crosswire.org -- and I debated changing my scripting
> habits to generate OSIS. But its complexity alongside my usual module
> generation scheme stopped me cold. This led to similar thoughts along
> this line:
>
> > Separating presentation from content is a nice idea, but I'm not
> > convinced that it is good in all cases. What happens with OSIS when a
> > Bible publisher wants to insist that certain constructs in their Bible
> > are formatted in certain ways?
>
> This is especially true given the wildly different habits embodied in
> each of the UIs. GS does not format like BT; BT does not format like
> MS; nothing formats like the Windows UI, mostly because it uses the RTF
> filters. Numbered footnotes/xrefs, or unlabeled superscripts? Inline
> footnote content? Verse-per-line display regardless of paragraph
> markup? Header above Gen 1:1 to identify the text? Underline, italic,
> bold markup in modules, when RTF provides no underline at all?
> Permissive markup pass-through, or limiting? Image support in all
> module types, or just some; and what formats?
>
> The deeper problem for me is that, for the vast majority of mere mortals
> out there, what is wanted in a Bible study tool is readable texts. It's
> certainly true that OSIS provides more and often different structure
> that can be de- and re-constructed in more ways. But what Joe Random
> wants is readability and search capability. It's not clear to me that
> either of these qualities is better served by OSIS than ThML.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:39:57 -0400
> From: DM Smith <dmsmith555 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [sword-devel] osis2mod and WoC
> To: SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum <sword-devel at crosswire.org>
> Message-ID: <486A33AD.80401 at yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> I'd like to propose a change to osis2mod and get consensus before making
> the change.
>
> The goal of osis2mod is to allow any valid OSIS as input and to
> transform it, if necessary to a form that SWORD apps can handle, and do
> it in a loss-less manner. However, that is not reality. An encoder needs
> to create OSIS that the SWORD engine, front-ends and osis2mod expects.
>
> Today the KJV and the ESV are the only OSIS modules with the Words of
> Christ (aka WoC, aka red letter text) marked up.
>
> In beta there are several more, but none of them show properly across
> all front-ends.
>
> The markup in the KJV and ESV are tedious. The problem comes when a
> quote is interrupted, perhaps with "added" or parenthetical comments, or
> when a quote spans verses or even chapters (e.g. the Sermon on the
> Mount). Also, both the KJV and ESV require the OSISqToTick hack that
> suppresses the automatic generation of quotation marks when the marker
> attribute is not present.
>
> The solution has been for the encoder of the input to osis2mod to encode
> the OSIS in a way that the SWORD engine and the front-ends can handle.
> However, the goal would be to allow the Sermon on the Mount to have a
> quote start in Chapter 5 and a quote end in Chapter 7, greatly
> simplifying the encoders job in marking the WoC.
>
> It is rather straight forward to markup the text so that it can work.
> But today it falls on the OSIS input encoder to do. I'd like to
> recommend that we move the processing into osis2mod.
>
> Ultimately this solution recognizes that the <qelement serves two
> purposes in SWORD:
> 1) Determination of which quote marks to use and where.
> 2) Determination of what text to mark up as red-letter-text.
>
> These would be handled distinctly and separately and result in a module
> that is encoded like the KJV or the ESV (these differ in that the KJV
> doesn't have quote marks anywhere) and the OSISqToTick would not be
> necessary.
>
> Further, this change would be compatible with 1.5.9.
>
> If interested, there is a discussion in the wiki concerning how this
> would be marked up.
> http://www.crosswire.org/wiki/index.php/Talk:Modules_in_the_beta_repository
>
> In Him,
> DM
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 06:54:47 -0700
> From: Chris Little <chrislit at crosswire.org>
> Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Why is OSIS preferred? Was Re: usfm2osis.pl
> To: SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum <sword-devel at crosswire.org>
> Message-ID: <486A3727.7040708 at crosswire.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Karl Kleinpaste wrote:
> > "Jonathan Morgan" <jonmmorgan at gmail.com> writes:
> >> ThML is also still (I think) used by the greatest percentage of our
> >> modules (though that may be changed in the future).
> > ...
> >> Will GBF continue to be supported? I seem to remember that Chris
> >> reported lack of GBF support as a missing feature in BPBible, despite
> >> the fact that I'm sure that I have heard statements suggesting GBF is
> >> very strongly deprecated. How many modules are still GBF?
> >
> > A couple shell commands will give useful summaries. Refresh main and
> > beta repos in your mod.mgr, then peek in ~/.sword/InstallMgr/*/mods.d.
> >
> > for i in plain gbf thml osis ; do
> > echo $i `grep -i ^sourcetype=$i * | wc -l`
> > done
> >
> > Main: Beta:
> > plain 2 plain 1
> > gbf 49 gbf 0
> > thml 163 thml 6
> > osis 23 osis 93
>
> This is a little misleading because plain is usually unmarked. (It's the
> default value of SourceType.)
>
> The history of the numbers is basically that when I came to CrossWire,
> there was support for plaintext, GBF, and a specialized filter for just
> the RWP module. Eventually I outgrew GBF's capabilities, so I submitted
> the ThML filters and started using ThML wherever it appeared that GBF
> would be incapable of handling the data. Then I got this grand idea that
> we should use a single format for everything so that we wouldn't have to
> keep supporting n input formats times m render formats every time we
> needed to add features and so that we could have a more consistent look
> & feel across modules. At the time, ThML was the best we had, so lots of
> things got encoded as ThML, regardless of whether they could have been
> encoded as GBF. Then we got involved in OSIS, so we wrote OSIS filters
> and have been, fairly consistently, releasing only OSIS (or plaintext)
> Bibles.
>
> As content gets upgraded, it will generally be upgraded to OSIS or TEI.
> Likewise, new content will generally be OSIS or TEI. And everything that
> gets posted in these formats will have passed schema validation.
>
> > The reason for the new increase in beta OSIS modules is due to the
> > arrival of 41 new WBT texts 2 days ago -- almost half the beta repo in
> > one shot.
> >
> > Significantly, a couple of really important modules (LXX, for one) are
> > still distributed as GBF.
> >
> > (Aside: All these new WBT texts appear in GS as "unknown" language. Is
> > there a mapping somewhere handy, from "ngu", "tzz", et al to something
> > readable by mere mortals? I'm happy to update GS to accommodate more
> > language definitions but I need a source for them.)
>
> The current ISO 630-3 table is at
> http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/iso-639-3_20080529.tab
>
> You can usually get an English-language name of the language by
> extracting the LCSH value, too (after removing Bible. and possibly O.T.
> or N.T.). I haven't added this info to the WBTI Bibles yet, though.
>
> However, some of the language codes are incorrect and need to be fixed.
> (The ones I know of ATM are sco, which should be cso, and xmt, which
> should be mxt.)
>
> --Chris
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:38:23 -0400
> From: DM Smith <dmsmith555 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Why is OSIS preferred? Was Re: usfm2osis.pl
> To: SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum <sword-devel at crosswire.org>
> Message-ID: <486A4F6F.5000301 at yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Karl Kleinpaste wrote:
> > "Jonathan Morgan" <jonmmorgan at gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> ThML is also still (I think) used by the greatest percentage of our
> >> modules (though that may be changed in the future).
> >>
> > ...
> >
> >> Will GBF continue to be supported? I seem to remember that Chris
> >> reported lack of GBF support as a missing feature in BPBible, despite
> >> the fact that I'm sure that I have heard statements suggesting GBF is
> >> very strongly deprecated. How many modules are still GBF?
> >>
> >
> > A couple shell commands will give useful summaries. Refresh main and
> > beta repos in your mod.mgr, then peek in ~/.sword/InstallMgr/*/mods.d.
> >
> > for i in plain gbf thml osis ; do
> > echo $i `grep -i ^sourcetype=$i * | wc -l`
> > done
> >
> > Main: Beta:
> > plain 2 plain 1
> > gbf 49 gbf 0
> > thml 163 thml 6
> > osis 23 osis 93
> There are some modules you have missed: some plaintext and some tei.
> Also, some modules in beta have just been released and some will upgrade
> existing modules.
>
> Recently released:
> etheridge, finney, geralbrecht, gerreinhardt, godsword, heretics,
> institutes, noyes, spavnt
>
> The merged numbers will be:
>
> Merged:
> plain 42 - 3 are becoming OSIS and 2 new PlainText
> gbf 45 - 3 are becoming OSIS
> thml 162 - 4 are becoming OSIS and 3 new ThML
> osis 122
> tei 12
>
> Of the current ThML module, there are 106 glossaries. (These probably would
> be best to be encoded in TEI.) If we ignore these, since most people find
> them useless and ignore them and because most front-ends can't do anything
> useful with them, the number of ThML modules will be:
> 56
>
> In Him,
> DM
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:48:10 -0700
> From: Chris Little <chrislit at crosswire.org>
> Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Why is OSIS preferred? Was Re: usfm2osis.pl
> To: SWORD Developers' Collaboration Forum <sword-devel at crosswire.org>
> Message-ID: <486A51BA.2000508 at crosswire.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>
>
> DM Smith wrote:
> > Of the current ThML module, there are 106 glossaries. (These probably
> would be best to be encoded in TEI.) If we ignore these, since most people
> find them useless and ignore them and because most front-ends can't do
> anything useful with them, the number of ThML modules will be:
> > 56
>
> Oh. Well, that does change the numbers a bit. (And it was rather stupid
> to even encode these as "ThML" since they should have just been
> plaintext. If you look at the data, every entry has exactly one line and
> exactly one ThML tag: a <br /> at the end of the line.)
>
> Anyway, I believe I found a nice source from which to get replacements
> for all of our glossaries (and more)--already encoded in TEI for us.
> (But given the above, I'm not sure whether this is at all necessary.)
>
> --Chris
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 10:39:56 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Haslam <d.haslam at ukonline.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [sword-devel] Why is OSIS preferred? Was Re: usfm2osis.pl
> To: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> Message-ID: <18221402.post at talk.nabble.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> Hi Karl,
>
> Are we allowed to know who the main contact is at WBT/SIL for permitting
> these to be used by Crosswire?
>
> I just tried two of these modules in SWORD 1.5.11 out of curiosity.
> * jvn_BL_1999
> * miz_BL_2003
> What languages are these, anyone know?
>
> There are needed some improvements in punctuation -
> eg. sometimes there's no space after a full-stop in the jvn module.
>
> Best regards,
> David Haslam
>
>
> Karl Kleinpaste-2 wrote:
> >
> >
> > The reason for the new increase in beta OSIS modules is due to the
> > arrival of 41 new WBT texts 2 days ago -- almost half the beta repo in
> > one shot.
> >
> > Significantly, a couple of really important modules (LXX, for one) are
> > still distributed as GBF.
> >
> > (Aside: All these new WBT texts appear in GS as "unknown" language. Is
> > there a mapping somewhere handy, from "ngu", "tzz", et al to something
> > readable by mere mortals? I'm happy to update GS to accommodate more
> > language definitions but I need a source for them.)
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Why-is-OSIS-preferred--Was-Re%3A-usfm2osis.pl-tp18197430p18221402.html
> Sent from the SWORD Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list
> sword-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>
>
> End of sword-devel Digest, Vol 52, Issue 3
> ******************************************
>
--
If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if
any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,
Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one
accord, of one mind.
Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind
let each esteem other better than themselves.
Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of
others.
(Philipians 2:1-4)
Only fear the LORD, and serve him in truth with all your heart: for consider
how great things he hath done for you.
(1 Samuel 12:24 KJVR)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/attachments/20080702/f22a0922/attachment-0001.html
More information about the sword-devel
mailing list