[osis-core] Notes that apply to multiple non-contiguous verses.

[Patrick Durusau]

Todd,

Todd Tillinghast wrote:

>I have been looking at issues related to notes in the CEV.
>
>There are some occurrences where a note applies to more than one
>non-contiguous verse.
>  
>
Actually no, the note is not being applied to non-continguous verses. At 
least in the examples you cited. For example, Gen.28.2/Gen.28.6, the 
note on "northern Syria" is simply using typography to avoid entering 
the same information twice. It is not a non-contiguous reference. The 
note that appears at the bottom of the page makes a reference to yet 
another note at 24.10 that has additional information. (A note can 
contain a reference so that part is not a problem.)

Just in terms of terminology, I would consider a note that references 
non-contiguous verses as being one that say is a comment on verse 28.2 
and 28.4, together. In other words, not a repetition of information but 
rather a comment that applies to the two verses together.

What you have here is the same note being applied at different points in 
the text and the use of typography to avoid retyping the material. An 
illusory non-contiguous reference if you will. ;-)

>In these cases the same superscripted letter identifier is used for of
>all of the occurrences in the text, which would seem to imply that they
>are in fact the same note (this coupled with the fact that the text of
>the notes is identical).  I believe that Mike send all of copies of the
>standard CEV.  See Gen.28.2/Gen.28.6; Gen.37.3/Gen.37.23; and
>Gen.41.1/Gen.41.37 for examples.
>
>QUESTION 1.A: Should the note be repeated for each occurrence within the
>main text?  The reason to repeat the notes is based on the fact that the
>"osisRef" attribute can refer to a single verse or contiguous range of
>verses.  It seems wrong to repeat the same text, but also seems to be
>the only way to do things with our schema.  Do you concur with the
>assessment?
>  
>
Well, you could simply enter a note for each verse where it applies. 
That would be the default case.

Could also enter a note that simply contains a reference to separate 
note element that contains the text that you want to have applied in 
multiple cases. The inline note as it were, would simply be a reference 
to a note that has the actually content to appear there. That would keep 
you from re-entering the information and allow discovery of notes that 
share content. Assuming you use the "n" attribute, you could gather 
those up for the CEV sort of presentation in footnotes.

>QUESTION 1.B: Assuming that notes that apply to non-contiguous verses
>are encoded for each verse, what is the best way to indicate that they
>are duplicates of the same note?  What makes sense to me is to give all
>of the duplicate copies to the note the same osisID.  Does this make
>sense?
>  
>
Negatory on the duplicate osisIDs. See above, use the reference child 
element of note. Actually you could have two reference children, one 
that selects the common text and another that points to the actual 
information, which in the Gen.28.2/Gen.28.6 case is actually found at 
24.10.

>QUESTION 2: Would you consider storing the "37.3,23" part of [d 37.3,23
>fancy coat: Or "a coat of many colors" or "a coat with long sleeves."]
>in the "n" attribute a stretch of the purpose of the attribute and/or
>inappropriate because it is presentation information.  I believe this is
>somewhat similar to having the "presentation" part of a <reference> as a
>text child element.  The value placed in the "n" attribute could be
>derived from the set of notes with the same osisID, but would be more
>difficult than simply using the contents of the "n" attribute;
>  
>
I would concede that for reproduction of the typography that your best 
bet is probably the "n" attribute.

>Example of what I think is the best way to handle notes:
>  
>
I would either encode them separately or if being able to determine that 
they are the same, would convert your example to use a <reference> to 
create a pointer to a note that holds the common text. Better to not 
abuse the osisID which does not normally carry the semantic of 
duplicated information. Duplicate references are allowed and do carry a 
semantic of common content. (In the sense that if two addresses point to 
Todd Tillinghast, it is assumed there is only one Todd Tillinghast, but 
multiple pointers.

Does this help?

BTW, can you forward the better stylesheets with examples? The ones that 
were too good? Can't say I have ever heard that criticism of stylesheets 
before! ;-)

Thanks!

Patrick

><verse osisID="Gen.37.3">Jacob loved Joseph more than he did any of his
>other sons, because Joseph was born after Jacob was very old. Jacob had
>given Joseph a fancy coat <note type="translation" n="37.3,23"
>osisRef="Gen.37.3" osisID="Gen.37.3.note.d"><catchWord>fancy
>coat</catchWord>Or <q>a coat of many colors</q> or <q>a coat with long
>sleeves.</q></note></verse>
>...
><verse osisID="Gen.37.23">When Joseph came to his brothers, they pulled
>off his fancy coat <note type="translation" n="37.3,23"
>osisRef="Gen.37.23" osisID="Gen.37.3.note.d"><catchWord>fancy
>coat</catchWord>Or <q>a coat of many colors</q> or <q>a coat with long
>sleeves.</q></note></verse>
>
>Do you have any concerns, suggestions, corrections, comments, or
>improvements to this strategy for notes?
>
>Todd
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>osis-core mailing list
>osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
>http://www.bibletechnologieswg.org/mailman/listinfo/osis-core
>
>  
>

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu
Co-Editor, ISO Reference Model for Topic Maps