[sword-devel] Improvements to osis2mod to handle XML comments and <header> correctly

[Weston Ruter]

DM:

But what we really need is not a parser but a tokenizer. I'm thinking about
> writing one (my degree work was in compiler writing). Basically, we repeat
> the same tokenization code in several places. It should be trivial to write
> a complete, accurate one.
>

I've also been wanting to work on a tokenizer. At Open Scriptures, the text
of a work is currently represented by two
models<http://github.com/openscriptures/api/blob/master/models.py>(database
tables):
Token <http://github.com/openscriptures/api/blob/master/models.py#L242> and
Structure <http://github.com/openscriptures/api/blob/master/models.py#L315>.
Tokens are the smallest divisible units of text, such as words, punctuation,
and whitespace; and structures are the spans of tokens that form logical
units, such as verses, paragraphs, quotes, etc. The structures are
standoff-markup for the tokens. With the underlying data stored in this way,
it can then be serialized in whichever hierarchy desired
(book-section-paragraph, book-chapter-verse, all-milestoned, etc) or
whichever data format is needed (OSIS, SWORD Module, XHTML, etc.)

So what I'm currently rumenating on is the process of importing the raw data
into the Token and Structure models. I wrote an
importer<http://github.com/openscriptures/api/blob/master/importers/Tischendorf-2.5.py>for
the Tischendorf GNT data which does everything both tokenizing and
parsing, but obviously there is going to be a lot of code in common with
other importers that are written. So I too am thinking about how these
importers can be reduced to the bare minimum to handle the unique aspects of
the raw data (i.e. normalize it), and then stream the tokens back to a
central importer that parses the input and stores it into the Token and
Structure models. This central importer facility could be a web service.

I've love to collaborate with you on this. We could come up with a common
tokenizer that can be used by both SWORD and Open Scriptures. The importer
web service could take tokens as input and as output generate a SWORD module
and also populate the Open Scriptures models at the same time.

Thoughts?

Weston



On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Daniel Owens <dhowens at pmbx.net> wrote:

> Yes, I agree, and if there were a feedback mechanism for the module creator
> to let them know how to start fixing an OSIS file or conf file, it would
> save Chris (or whoever else approves modules) time on the basic stuff.
>
> Daniel
>
>
> On 4/5/2010 11:09 AM, DM Smith wrote:
>
>> This is a great idea. Rather than emailing source to modules at crosswire
>> dot org, one could upload it via a web service. We could have stages of
>> validation (xmllint) and construction (osis2mod). Such a service could
>> evaluate the quality of the submission.
>>
>> In Him,
>>    DM
>>
>> On 04/05/2010 12:01 PM, Weston Ruter wrote:
>>
>>> Why not turn osis2mod into a web service? Then it wouldn't matter how it
>>> is implemented since it would be abstracted away by the web service
>>> interface. It could use the best XML libraries available today and written
>>> in the programming language of choice, both of which would make maintenance
>>> and the addition of new features much easier.
>>>
>>> Weston
>>>
>>


On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 9:05 AM, DM Smith <dmsmith at crosswire.org> wrote:

> On 04/05/2010 09:03 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>
>> On 5 April 2010 13:55, Manfred Bergmann<manfred.bergmann at me.com>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi DM.
>>>
>>> Am 05.04.2010 um 13:21 schrieb DM Smith:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Regarding using a "real" parser, it is a good idea. But we don't want
>>>> SWORD to be dependant on an external parser.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What's the reason for that?
>>> I could understand if it would mean for the user to install certain
>>> libraries manually but when the sources can be integrated into the project
>>> and has the appropriate licence then why not?
>>>
>>>
>>> Manfred
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> IMHO there is no harm in bringing in libxml or a much more lightweight
>> parser like GMarkup. The build system just needs to be adjusted to
>> link e.g. libxml for the osis2mod binary and not shared sword library.
>> in can be even called a new tool osisxml2mod for example and make it
>> be build optionally such that you can still have full sword dev
>> environment without libxml.
>>
>> Tools for creating modules do not have be linked with sword or even
>> live in sword taball / svn. Although it does help consistent
>> distribution of tools.
>>
>>
> I don't remember all of Troy's reasoning when I argued for a true parser.
>
> From what I recall:
> o To maintain freedom to re-license SWORD (e.g. for some other Bible
> society) we need to be able to keep 3-rd party library dependencies well
> managed. The license needs to be compatible with the GPL but cannot be GPL.
>
> o The parser that we have is minimal and simple, sacrificing accuracy and
> completeness for speed. Regarding accuracy, e.g. the parser allows for
> spaces around = in attribute declarations. Regarding completeness, e.g. it
> does not handle namespaces, cdata, dtds/schemas, .... Significantly, it does
> not require a well-formed document, allowing for fragments. Rather than an
> error, it continues when an xml parser is required to stop.
>
> o This parser has better error reporting in that it is based upon knowledge
> of the input. E.g. it reports the verse having the problem.
>
> o By SWORD having the parser, we are not dependent on finding an
> implementation for every platform (e.g. Windows).
>
> There may be other reasons. I'm willing to live with it.
>
> But what we really need is not a parser but a tokenizer. I'm thinking about
> writing one (my degree work was in compiler writing). Basically, we repeat
> the same tokenization code in several places. It should be trivial to write
> a complete, accurate one.
>
> In His Service,
>    DM
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/attachments/20100405/4b04e1ab/attachment-0001.html>