[osis-core] scripCom

[Harry Plantinga]

Troy,

Yes, my understanding is that the id="..." attribute is does the
"I am this" function, and it can occur on any element. (I wouldn't
want to have to put <verse> elements throughout augustine's confessions
to be able to tell where various books, chapters, sections are.)

I also agree with Steve's suggestion that it ought to have a more
distinctive name, maybe osisID or sectionID or canonicalID.

Q. Do they have to be unique within a document?

Q. Is there a way of defining the class of legal canonicalIDs for
a document?

-Harry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
> [mailto:owner-osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org]On Behalf Of Troy A.
> Griffitts
> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 11:03 PM
> To: osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
> Subject: Re: [osis-core] scripCom
>
>
> I STILL feel we're all on different pages.  Let me just tell you what
> page I feel we're all on and you can correct me.
>
>
> I thought all "I am this" marking in a text were to use the <verse>
> element.  These <verse> tagged sections of text would then become valid
> targets of our <reference> tag.
>
> I think Steve has stated this same thing below:
>
>  > A: The GNT, KJV, or any other version of Matthew 1:1:
>  >
>  >   <verse ref="Matt.1.1">
>  >
>  >   This is the "I am" case -- in effect, it means that this text claims
>  > to be some version of the identified passage, and should thus be
>  > appropriate as the target of any reference to that passage. This is
>  > faintly analogous to XML IDs.
>
> Question for Steve:  How would you markup "I am this" in Harry's example
> below:
>
>  > How do I say that an element is Augustine's confessions X.iii.5?
>
>  >  <div id="X.iii.5"> together with something in the header which
>  >    says that this is augustine.confessions?
>
> Is this "I am this" tag what we were calling an *inRef*?
>
>
> I think I may have been stating my position poorly in previous emails.
> Let me restate some of my concerns.
>
>
> I think Patrick is suggesting the we mark "I am this" with ANY element
> we want using the ID attribute.  I think Harry may also be suggesting
> the same.
>
> I think it is more coherent to keep the SAME tag everywhere (this is
> where it sounds like Steve misunderstood me) for declaring "I am this"--
> currently <verse>, and the SAME tag (though NOT the same as the "I am
> this" tag) to designate a <reference>.
>
>
> >   <ref word="Bible.NIV...." ref="Matt.1.1-Matt.1.4">
>
> assuming:
> 	<reference work="Bible.NIV" cite="Matt.1.1-Matt.1.4">
>
> I looked thru the xsd and couldn't find ref= to be valid.
>
>
> >   This is the reference or outRef case, which specifically means the
> > text at this point is *not* claiming to be an edition of the identified
> > passage, but a place that is relevant to understanding it (or vice
> > versa). This is faintly analogous to XML IDREFs.
>
>
> This is the inRef/outRef pair I understood, as well: <verse> = inRef;
> <reference> = outRef
>
>
> I think Patrick has a different definition of inRef/outRef, as stated
> below by Patrick:
>
>  > I think the inRef and outRef syntax is a hold over from when we were
>  > talking about validating the content of pointers and so it made a
>  > difference if you were pointing into an OSIS document (we could
>  > validate) versus pointing at a non-OSIS document from within one, we
>  > could not validate. I am not sure the distinction is meaningful with
>  > our current syntax.
>
>
> Steve, if I understand your statement below, I think I would categorize
> this different.
>
> > I think, though, that we also have two possible subtypes of B:
> >
> >    B1) This is a link to that passage, intended mainly to get you there
> >
> >    B2) This marks content that is generally "about" that passage
>
> I would say that a <reference> tag should look something like this
> excerpt from Matthew Henry's Commentary:
>
>
> Thus doth God frustrate his enemies by frightening them, <reference
> work="Bible.KJV" cite="Ps.9.20">Ps. ix. 20</reference>.
>
> A <reference> doesn't seem like it would include things like you list
> below, but could.
>
>
> > "I am a commentary (or portion) *about* Matt.1.1"
> > "I am a sermon (or portion) *about* Matt.1.1"
> > "I am a reader response annotation *about* Matt.1.1"
> > "I am an exposition (or portion) *about* Matt.1.1"
> > "I am a poeticRendering (or portion) *about* Matt.1.1"
>
>
> I think you and Patrick are both misunderstanding for what Harry is
> asking.  Matthew Henry's Commentary is divided into section like:
>
> Matthew 28:1-10:
>
> The Resurrection.
>       1 In the end of the...
> [ more commentary on Matthew 28:1-10 ]
>
>
> There are many of these verse by verse commentaries-- in fact every one
> of the commentaries we have for our software is divided up exactly like
> this.
>
> If I understand Harry correctly, he would like to tag these sections of
> text with something like:
>
> <div id="Matthew 28:1-10" type="scriptCom">
> Matthew 28:1-10:
>
> The Resurrection.
>        1 In the end of the...
> [ more commentary on Matthew 28:1-10 ]
> </div>
>
>
>
> I told Harry that we used <verse> to mark these sections when exporting
> MHC for the OSIS 1.0 spec.  e.g.
>
>
> <verseStart ref="Matthew.28.1" />
> <verseStart ref="Matthew.28.2" />
> <verseStart ref="Matthew.28.3" />
> <verseStart ref="Matthew.28.4" />
> <verseStart ref="Matthew.28.5" />
> <verseStart ref="Matthew.28.6" />
> <verseStart ref="Matthew.28.7" />
> <verseStart ref="Matthew.28.8" />
> <verseStart ref="Matthew.28.9" />
> <verseStart ref="Matthew.28.10" />
> Matthew 28:1-10:
>
> The Resurrection.
>        1 In the end of the...
> [ more commentary on Matthew 28:1-10 ]
>
> <verseEnd ref="Matthew.28.10"/>
> <verseEnd ref="Matthew.28.9"/>
> <verseEnd ref="Matthew.28.8"/>
> <verseEnd ref="Matthew.28.7"/>
> <verseEnd ref="Matthew.28.6"/>
> <verseEnd ref="Matthew.28.5"/>
> <verseEnd ref="Matthew.28.4"/>
> <verseEnd ref="Matthew.28.3"/>
> <verseEnd ref="Matthew.28.2"/>
> <verseEnd ref="Matthew.28.1"/>
>
>
> This is cheezy, but how we have to markup Bibles.  Steve also thinks
> this as per his quote, below:
>
>  > Thus, for A one cannot say this is "Matthew 1:1-3"; if that is the
>  > case one must encode all 3 verse references there
>
>
> And I was using this same method for marking up a commentary (MHC).
>
>
> Just random thoughts and requests for confirmation,
>
> 	-Troy.
>
>