[sword-devel] av11n mappings

[Troy A. Griffitts]

Dear Konstantin (and Chris),

The recent comment on sword-devel reminding me of this thread.

I have a few questions and don't want your work to be ignored because of
miscommunication.  See below.


On 10/28/2010 09:14 AM, Konstantin Maslyuk wrote:
> Hi, Troy.
> 
>> V1 [abc]
>> V2 [abcd]
>> V3 [abce]
>> where V1 is your chosen intermediate system (KJV or KJVA in your code),
>> and the problem case comes when attempting to map V2.d to V3.e
> 
> My  code  will  map  V2[d] to V3[e] if they should be mapped otherwise
> mapping  data  should  mark both of them as unexisting in intermediate
> v11n.  Or  maybe  if V3[e] is verse after V2[d] it should be mapped as
> V1[a+4].  The  code  just  modify chapter/verse ids and if final verse
> exists in v11n it should be displayed.

My initial review of your work didn't reveal to me how this would
manifest itself in your mapping data table.  Could you provide an
example?  Maybe Chris could provide a few problem cases and we could try
to solve just these cases with your implementation.  If we tackle a few
difficult cases as a pilot, I think it would go a long way in revealing
any adjustments to the code we might need to make.


> There  also  would  be problems if map verse from one book to verse in
> another  book.  And  i found in ccel.org that some books are mapped to
> another  names  (ex.  3Kdms == 1Kgs), i do not think it should be this
> way. There should be only one name in Sword for known book.

I understand from a programmatic point of view.  I also think all Bibles
should use the same versification scheme. :)  But they don't and we need
to accommodate the end user.  Seeing the proper book name is even more
important likely than getting the exact verses adjusted correctly.  I
think you could have a mapping of book to book in your mapping table.
The issue is also that some books show up in different orders, so book
numbers will change between scheme, and as we've already discussed,
names are v11n scheme dependent sometimes, as well.


>> Thank you for thinking hard about this and actively developing a first
>> draft at an implementation!  Nice work!  Looking forward to hearing how
>> your Synodal pilot translation table works out.
> 
> There  is  converter  for  ccel.org  refMap  to cpp and if i will have
> mapping  data between two v11ns in Sword i will prefer to work with it
> then finishing Synodal now.

I don't understand this last statement.

I thought you were going to produce a Russian Synodal mapping table for
your code to meet a real need and show how your code works.  I don't
understand when you say you would prefer "have mapping data between two
v11ns in Sword" rather than "finishing Synodal now".  I thought these
were the same thing; "finishing Synodal" I understand as your Synodal
mapping data for your new code you submitted.  Obviously I am
misunderstand.  My apologies.  Any clarification would be appreciated.





> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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