[osis-core] annotateWork and annotateType

[Harry Plantinga]

Todd,

The description of the reference element is this:

    <p>The <reference> element will be the subject of extension to
include XLink/XPointer syntax in a later OSIS release. At present it
marks the location of a reference in one text to another, whether direct
(like citation/quotation) or indirect (such as an allusion), along with
the reference/pointing mechanism in this release.</p>

In such cases, there is not really a reference or an allusion to another
text -- it's something different, it's a sermon on that text, a
commentary on that text, a poetic rendering, etc.

-Harry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org 
> [mailto:owner-osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org] On Behalf Of 
> Todd Tillinghast
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 4:22 PM
> To: osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
> Subject: RE: [osis-core] annotateWork and annotateType
> 
> 
> > > It seems that annotationWork and annotationType are a 
> hold over from 
> > > an older time and that the attributes are no longer 
> needed because 
> > > the preferred mechanism would be the
> > > following: <p><reference osisRef="conf:IV.6.ii" type="annotation" 
> > > subtype="translation"/></p>
> > 
> > That really doesn't do the job.  The <p> is a container; 
> it's a much 
> > different matter to put an empty element inside a container 
> with the 
> > given attributes. What would it even mean -- that any element 
> > containing that empty reference element has those attributes?
> 
> The way I understand the use of the <reference> element is 
> that its role is based on the type and subtype attributes and 
> that a <reference> element will often describe its parent element.
> 
> The only reason the <reference> is not always an empty 
> element is so that it can contain a text/presentation version 
> of the value in the osisRef attribute.
> 
> > 
> > The other issue is that that is an abuse of the <reference> 
> element, 
> > which has different semantics.
> > 
> 
> I am not sure how this is an abuse of the reference element 
> or how the semantics are different.  Can you explain where 
> you see the difference?
> 
> > -Harry
> 
>