[osis-core] osisCore_Candiate_1.1_003 - 11 osisRef URLs

[Steve DeRose]

At 07:59 PM -0400 08/25/02, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>Steve,
>
>Any problems with Harry's distinction between a <reference> and an 
><a> element?

I didn't quite follow why <a> has processing semantics and 
<reference> doesn't, unless the idea is that it's kind of like <i> 
vs. <emph> -- and <a> is kind of a   hack for one particular 
processing semantic. But I'm not sure I have to get it; I don't see a 
problem with having both <a> and <reference> -- is the main current 
difference the use of osisRef vs. href? Or am I missing something?

>
>I think Harry has captured the essence of a reference, which may be 
>an allusion, reference, even a citation of another work ("The Wars 
>of YHWH") for example, to which no osisRef exists. It is still a 
>reference and an encoder might be interested in marking all the 
>references to such works, whether acessible online or even in 
>existence.

that makes sense to me, but in that case how does the target end get 
expressed, if <reference> only takes an osisRef?

>
>The <a> element, on the other hand, carries only the notion that the 
>surrounded text is a pointer to other material. The material pointed 
>to may confirm, contradict, or expand, contract what is said in the 
>text or may be completely irrelevant. The relationship between the 
>content of an <a> element, without more in the markup, is just 
>undefined.
>
>I don't see traversal as being the defintion
>
>Harry, does that capture the essence of what you were saying?
>
>Patrick
>
>
>Harry Plantinga wrote:
>
>>>At 04:31 PM -0400 08/21/02, Harry Plantinga wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hmmm.  Well, no matter how you handle a hypertext link, isn't it 
>>>>semantically different from a reference?
>>>>
>>>*That* is a really interesting question. Are you saying basically 
>>>that the defining criterion of links is traversal? That's 
>>>certainly reasonable, though it's not the XLink or RDF view. I'm 
>>>not sure what I think on that one.
>>>
>>
>>Well, yes, that's what I thought. I thought a <reference> element means
>>that the enclosed is a reference or allusion to another document. 
>>(It's up to the processing software what to do with it.) An <a> 
>>element is a hypertext link -- semantically meaning that upon 
>>activation I want to see this other document. There need be no 
>>reference or allusion at all.
>>
>>-Harry
>>
>
>--
>Patrick Durusau
>Director of Research and Development
>Society of Biblical Literature
>pdurusau@emory.edu


-- 

Steve DeRose -- http://www.stg.brown.edu/~sjd
Chair, Bible Technologies Group -- http://www.bibletechnologies.net
Email: sderose@speakeasy.net
Backup email: sjd@stg.brown.edu