[osis-core] Functional requirements document

[Patrick Durusau]

Kees,

Kees F. de Blois wrote:

>Dear colleagues,
>
>It was great to see most of you at the Denver conference. I am glad it went
>well in many ways. Trust you had a happy thanksgiving.
>
Yes, thanks!

>
>I would like to share a few observations re. requirements document that we
>discussed at the conference. I enjoyed reading it.
>Just a couple of comments:
>
>1. Overview
>
>The last paragraph is more or less a repeat of the first. Do we need to say
>it twice?
>
Sorry, bad editing. Noted for re-write.

>
>A more basic issue: Wouldn't it be a bit too ambitious to specify a basic
>XML format in OSIS 1.0 that includes lay commentaries? First of all, there
>is the time frame. We need to deliver at least a draft before the spring
>conference. To do a model for common and study bible editions already
>presents quite a challenge, I think. While bible editions tend to share a
>common structure, this may be much less the case in lay commentaries. And
>how do we define lay commentaries? And should lay commentaries be our first
>priority for non-biblical texts? This may be important from the perspective
>of the publishing world, but much less so from that of SBL and the world of
>Bible scholars and translators, for whom scholarly commentaries are more
>helpful.
>Would it make sense to focus on biblical source texts and translations for
>OSIS 1.0?
>
On reflection I think you are entirely correct. There has been some 
discussion about having "modules" that layer one on the other, so we 
could proceed from the most common needs to the more complex. Whatever 
was learned at the lower level would be fully applicable at the higher 
level. Elements might have more attributes, for example, or have more 
sub-elements that could occur within them.

My most recent suggestion in terms of a concrete example text was the 
Abingdon edition of the NRSV. It was a fairly plain edition of the text 
and with a few additions, might represent what one is likely to 
encounter as far as a basic bible text.

>
>5. LTS4
>
>Why a SHOULD rather than a MUST in this case? Is this too complex and time
>consuming? What were your considerations for the SHOULD?
>

*LTS.4* OSIS 1.0 SHOULD define default structures for common divisions 
of printed texts, including such structures as title page, front, body, 
back, as well as place holders for generated text objects such as a 
table of contents, index, table of illustrations, etc.

Since all texts (modern texts at any rate) include such structures, 
these would be a must. I said "should" so that we would have some room 
to decide jointly what structures we wanted to include. Due the press of 
time there was not a lot of time for me to consult with others on the 
draft. The other reason for it appearing at all, such structures are 
implied anyway, was to make sure publishers realize their needs were 
being taken into account. Among markup people the assumption of such 
structures would be apparent but perhaps not among those less familiar 
with text encoding standards.

>
>6. Note 4
>
>Again I would vote for a MUST if this is realistic. I am working on
>text-critical material in a Paratext environment right now and would value a
>standard to work from in the near future.
>
*Note.4* OSIS 1.0 SHOULD define the usage of notes for critical 
apparatus in a biblical text.

This may not be realistic and hence the should. I am fairly sure we 
could duplicate the abilities of Paratext in terms of critical apparatus 
but that is a small sample of the range of critical notes. It may be the 
case (Steve?) that we can define some basic critical apparatus note to 
be extended in a later module.

Thinking out loud: What if we defined a critical apparatus note for 
authoring (not recording legacy material) for an early release? Part of 
the problem with designing post authoring encoding schemes is that we 
have to account for all sorts of variation. This should get translators 
a uniform type of critical apparatus without having to deal with the 
layered apparatus that is found in some published works. And how much of 
that layering is really presentation as opposed to actual structure?

>
>7. Phrase Level Requirements
>
>First paragraph (small detail): what do you mean by 'authoring of biblical
>texts by human authors'? An open canon :)? I suppose the focus here is on
>Bible translators and the authors of study material....., correct?
>
Yes, an open canon! ;-)

No, should have read... "encoding of biblical texts by human authors..."

Remember, open draft appears next week so keep those comments (be 
gentle) and suggestions coming!

Thanks Kees!

Patrick

>
>For whatever it is worth...
>
>All the best as you prepare for another meeting in January. Wished I could
>be with you.
>
>Take care,
>
>
>Kees
>
>=======================================
>Kees F. de Blois
>UBS Translation Consultant
>Coordinator Translation Computer Resource Group
>Grintweg 82
>4401 NG YERSEKE, the Netherlands
>Tel: +31-113-576093; Fax: +31-113-576095
>E-mail: kdeblois@biblesocieties.org
>

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu