[sword-devel] NASB status

[Matěj Cepl]

On 2016-01-06, 18:53 GMT, Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> This is a commercial module to be sold by Lockman.  That is 
> a different scenario from other modules.  For this module, 
> I have reasonably asked:

I didn’t like Karl’s tone last time the flamewar went around, 
but I have to admit he is right. Whatever you say is suspicious 
because of one argument: “Twelve years”.

> 1) That we have a scripted, reproducible way to transform 
> their data from their pristine source to a module.

Yes, what’s the problem? Whom you asked for help (e.g., I have 
developed completely automatic conversion of CzeCSP from one XML 
to OSIS, and it didn’t take me twelve years to do it)? Twelve 
years.

> 2) That we support their entire dataset which they have given 
> us for this module (base text + footnotes / crossrefs 
> + lexica)

Yes, I have CzeCSP with footnotes, crossrefs, and notes. Twelve 
years.

> 3) That the result works generally in all major SWORD/JSword 
> frontends.

What are the problems? Where are the bugs? Where is the progress 
on development of the module recorded? I would be willing to buy 
the module, if that was required to work on it. Twelve years.

> It is not as simple as-- just release it and fix it later.  
> This is to be sold by Lockman.

What do you mean? I work for Red Hat. We sell software in tune 
of some, let's say, two billions of USD. Of course, we don’t 
expect it to absolutely perfect and bug-free. If there are bugs 
in the module, we can certainly provide a fix. Where is the 
alpha version, how do you plan to make QA working? Twelve years.

> Historically, we have had at least 4 people own this effort 
> over the years.  It is not simply that one person has sat on 
> this and hasn't finished it for 12 years.

Yes, so where are products of work of all these people? What did 
they do? I mean, I honestly believe that some work was done, but 
without some presentation of the results, how can we know what's 
done? Here “Twelve years” makes it even more difficult to be 
persuaded.

> I think we are close.  In my mind, the current owner (Greg) 
> simply needs to have a list of outstanding items which keep us 
> from satisfying 1-3 and push each of them down the road until 
> they are done.

And where is that list? That is my question.

> I don't know what those items are.  I am just concerned that 
> we meet 1-3 before we give the data to Lockman to sell and 
> I feel these 3 items are reasonable requests.

I don't think Lockman expects the work to be ever done at this 
point, but that's another thing. If they do, they have my 
admiration (or something else).

However, if you (or Lockman) expect that you will hand over 
finished absolutely prefect module and Lockman will never ever 
see you (or anybody from the Sword project) again, than I think 
you are sorely mistaken.  Unless of course they are prepared to 
maintain the module themselves. After all, even NASB itself is 
(according to Wikipedia) in its tenth edition.

Blessings,

Matěj

-- 
https://matej.ceplovi.cz/blog/, Jabber: mcepl at ceplovi.cz
GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB  25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC
 
My point was simply that such tax proposals [for Pigovian taxes
compensating for the transaction costs] are the stuff that dreams
are made of. In my youth it was said, that what was too silly to
be said may be sung. In modern economics it may be put into
mathematics.
    -- Ronald Coase
       Notes on the Problem of Social Cost