[osis-core] SplitID

[Patrick Durusau]

Todd,

Sorry for the delayed response! Trying to catch up on other work that 
lagged for the candidate release. New version with regex fixes to appear 
by Sunday NOON.

Todd Tillinghast wrote:

> 	
> We can not use the split id as suggested by the example Patrick gave.
> This does not however imply that we need to change the structure.  
> 
> The basic problem with the example 
> 
> <verse osisID="Matt.1.1" splitID="1"></verse>
> <verse osisID="Matt.1.1" splitID="2"></verse>
> 
> is that it depends on the osisID which may not always be available.
> 
> 
> 
> First there seem to be two kinds of splits being covered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ONE: Split verse identifier but not XML element splitting.
> <verse osisID="[[Matt.1.2] [Matt.1.3] [Matt.1.4] [Matt.1.5]
> [Matt.1.6]">...</verse>
> <verse osisID="[Matt.1.6] [Matt.1.7] [Matt.1.8] [Matt.1.9] [Matt.1.10]
> [Matt.1.11]">...</verse>
> 


Not sure what case you are describing here. A verse, as I understand the 
element, would never have more than one osisID. A <p> element could, is 
that what you are describing?

Assuming the latter, that is a case where Matt.1.6 is split between two 
<p> elements (the Matt.1.6a and Matt.1.6b in conventional but not OSIS 
notation, then the osisID (which is not a true XML ID) appears as an 
osisID in both <p> elements. This forces a search for osisID = Matt.1.6 
   to return both parts, which is the expected behavior.

Yes, need to document that behavior but that makes sense (I think) to 
have the default return all the relevant portions of a text by osisID 
even if the  particular text has split them differently than you might 
expect. Allows users to have a uniform expectation of how to ask for 
references and returns the material they requested.

> 
> TWO: Elements are split/segmented.  This is the case that was previously
> covered by prev/next attributes.  The difference is that translation
> DOES clearly provide the starting and ending points of the segmented
> element AND that the elements COULD just as easily be exchanged in their
> position in the XML document tree's hierarchy and the document be
> equivalent.  
> 

<snip>

> <p>
> 	<verse osisID="[Matt.13.1]">That same day Jesus left the house
> and went to the lakeside, where he sat down to teach.</verse>
> 	<verse osisID="[Matt.13.2]">The crowd that gathered around him
> was so large that he got into a boat and sat in it, while the crowd
> stood on the shore.</verse>
> 	<verse osisID="[Matt.13.3]" splitID="VMatt.13.3.a">He used
> parables to tell them many things.</verse>
> </p>
> <p>
> 	<q type="blockQuote">
> 		<verse osisID="[Matt.13.3]" splitID="VMatt.13.3.b">Once
> there was a man who went out to sow grain.</verse>
> 		<verse osisID="[Matt.13.4]">As he scattered the seed in
> the field, some of it fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it
> up.</verse>
> 		<verse osisID="[Matt.13.5]">Some of it fell on rocky
> ground, where there was little soil. The seeds soon sprouted, because
> the soil wasn't deep.</verse>
> 		<verse osisID="[Matt.13.6]">But when the sun came up, it
> burned the young plants; and because the roots had not grown deep
> enough, the plants soon dried up.</verse>
> 		<verse osisID="[Matt.13.7]">Some of the seed fell among
> thorn bushes, which grew up and choked the plants.</verse>
> 		<verse osisID="[Matt.13.8]">But some seeds fell in good
> soil, and the plants bore grain: some had one hundred grains, others
> sixty, and others thirty.</verse>
> 	</q>
> </p>


I would re-write without the [] but your Matt.13.3 gets you both parts 
of Matt.13.3 so perhaps I don't see the issue?

On the topic of elements without osisIDs, you can use the splitID to 
assign a common splitID to the parts of the element being split and get 
the same behavior as we do by using the common osisID for other elements.

The prev/next is just an affectation of TEI for processing that never 
existed. Much easier to simply have a common attribute value that links 
the split elements together. Might be some value in an "order" type 
attribute that allows reordering of the content, but not sure we need it 
in this release. Would certainly be required for the scholarly module, 
perhaps for translators as well.

Does that help?

BTW, laptop is back! Failing/failed battery toasted the I/O board. :-(

Patrick


> 
> 
> Am I missing what you are trying to do with splitID?
> 
> Am I in a different ocean with respect to the strategy for segmentation?
> 
> OR does all of this make sense?
> 
> Todd
> 
>