[sword-devel] Av11n and coverage

[DM Smith]

On 02/10/2012 02:00 AM, Jonathan Morgan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This proposal of Peter's received a lot of discussion back in 
> January.  However, when I look at the Wiki I see that "Scope" is 
> listed in the conf file specification as a "proposed" conf file 
> element which may change.  A few questions:
> 1. What will it take for this specification to be "Complete"?
Regarding JSword, we need to finish av11n first. After that and maybe 
part of that release I'll push for this. Until it is codified in SWORD 
lib or it is added to the modules' confs, it won't be complete.

> 2. Are there plans to change the conf files of existing modules that 
> require it?
No. But I think it makes sense to do it.

>   If so, when?
Probably after Scope is implemented in SWORD lib, but it could go in now.

> 3. Will/should this affect only Bibles, or will it affect commentaries 
> as well? (e.g. TDavid, which is theoretically only Psalms but in the 
> current SWORD version has some of the Psalms commentary under Malachi).
IMHO, it should affect all those that use a versification. So, 
commentaries as well.

> 4. Will there be any changes at the engine level (e.g. to view Matthew 
> 1:2 as an invalid reference for a book with only NT, and to change 
> module iteration appropriately if there are gaps), or will every 
> frontend need to parse and use the "Scope" parameter? (which from what 
> I can see could get a little complicated).
For JSword, I plan for it all to be in the engine. Frontends will 
probably need to change to take advantage of the change. Specifically, 
the Book (aka module) (Or possibly ScopedVerisification) will need to be 
consulted for verses. That is a scoped verse makes sense only in the 
context of the module from which it comes. The difficult part is that a 
verse needs to stand apart from a Book so that it can be used in 
parallel view of Bibles that have different scopes.

So for JSword, iteration is repeatedly asking a Book for the verse 
following a particular one. But that is not the way it is now.

>
> The reason I ask is because I've been fixing bugs in BPBible handling 
> of OT-only and NT-only books.
>
> Thanks,
> Jon
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Peter von Kaehne <refdoc at gmx.net 
> <mailto:refdoc at gmx.net>> wrote:
>
>     Some of our modules need a certain versification, but do not use
>     all the
>     books available in the versification. Sometimes this is the result of
>     the translation being incomplete, but sometimes this is the result
>     of a
>     theological stance:
>
>     Many translations in the former USSR area will use the synodal
>     versification, but will at the same time not integrate DC material.
>
>     Currently on libsword frontends which support av11n a text with
>     Synodal
>     v11n, but no DC material will have empty DC books and the names will
>     appear in the menus. This can be a serious detractor in areas where
>     people might consider the Bible being corrupted and the same people
>     unwilling to listen to lengthy explanations why DC is not meant to be
>     part of the Bible.
>
>     Alternatively, many translations, while incomplete are meant to be
>     incomplete - e.g. are in a small language where people will want
>     to have
>     parts of the Bible in their own mother tongue, but will happily
>     use the
>     dominant language for more complete Bible study. A number of our Iran
>     region translations are of this kind. To have all books appear in the
>     menus when in reality there are and will ever only be e.g. Genesis,
>     Psalms, Luke, Acts and Romans is detracting.
>
>     The best solution for all this would be a coverage entry in the
>     conf file.
>
>     Chris suggested that this should be an OSISRef. I concur. It is
>     the most
>     flexible way of implementing this and allows finegrained control
>     (if one
>     wishes to have this)
>
>     Can I propose therefore that we will add to "incomplete" modules (in
>     terms of the underlying versification) an entry
>
>     Coverage=Gen,Psalm,Luke,Acts,Rom (sorry if the OSIS abbreviations are
>     off, but OSIS was meant)
>
>     For some nonDC translations this might then be simply
>
>     Coverage=Gen-Mal,Mat-Rev
>
>     Others nonDC translations (with v111n where DC material is
>     interspersed)
>     might require more finegrained references, including chapter and verse
>     references.
>
>     Frontends then could implement this as part of their work to make
>     av11n
>     work.
>
>     Underlying is of course the versification of a particular module -
>     which
>     will dictate which books are there in the first place, in which order
>     and which chapters/verses too.
>
>     What does everyone think?
>
>     Peter
>
>     I am posting this to jsword too as I see that DM has started
>     implementing av11n!! Great - thanks DM.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/attachments/20120210/defcef95/attachment.html>