[osis-core] osisRef (finally)

[Troy A. Griffitts]

> Thus, I should be able to say (in some syntax): Versification - 
> Standard, Translation/Edition (to specify a particular translation), etc.

Yes.  We need a way to specify reference scheme, separate from target 
work.  We had lengthy discussion on this, and I wouldn't do justice 
restating everyone's opinion.  But, I believe the conclusion was to 
eventually allow something like:

<someHeader refScheme="Bible.French">

<reference work="KJV" osisID="Ps.40.1">

and get the equiv. text in the KJV relative to the French reference scheme.

or to allow them to override the default with:

<reference refScheme="Bible.KJV" work="KJV" osisID="Ps.40.1">

and get Ps 40:1 from the KJV as refered to in the KJV by the KJV 
reference scheme.



> Perhaps we should return to Harry's question of having a standard 
> versification (includes all apocrypha, etc.) since the greater includes 
> the lesser and simply say that is the standard versification by default 
> and that all others map to it? (Without attempting the mapping at this 
> late date.) I could probably cast together a pattern of "or" statements 
> that would validate any standard bible reference. (In other words, 
> unlike the regex that Todd and I labored so long on, it would have range 
> operators for the individual books and verses. Anyone who wants to use 
> an alternative versification, such as the Jewish one, could subtype that 
> standard and extend the range statements.

Consensus at Dallas was to put this off to a future release.  We were 
only going to mark _our_ (the documents) reference scheme in the header, 
mark all target points with <verseStart refID="" /> and leave the 
defining and mapping mechanism to a future meeting.

Maybe that _future_ time has pasted, but I believe the reason for 
deferment was to get a public spec. out sometime soon, which we have not 
yet accomplished; so, I would still hold the position: let's worry about 
it later!


> Therefore, our reference syntax would be: 
> Bible.Standard.(translation/edition)?.(book).(chapter)?.(verse)? with 
> the Bible.Standard.(translation/edition)? being held in "work"?

Yes, I would agree with this.  What about ref scheme?


> (After all, the chances of someone finding the incorrect reference when 
> someone calls out: John 5:39 are fairly small, no matter what 
> "translation/edition" they are using. I think we may be trying to solve 
> the odd case (primarily the Psalms but a few other places) elegantly 
> when there may be no elegant solution. I suggest "Let'em  map" and be 
> done with it. ;-) (Troy, you should appreciate the citation.)

Yes, I very much like it when Jesus slams the self-righteous Pharasees 
and experts in the Law, with the Law Itself, for missing the entire 
point of His coming!  Nice ref!


	-Troy.