[osis-core] Conclusion on <discourseMarker>?

[Chris Little]

Todd Tillinghast wrote:

>We don't have a strong champion for <discorseMarker>.
>
I think, unfortunately, that's because the champions are either not 
subscribed or not speaking up.  But it sounded like it was a pretty big 
issue for some people at the meeting two weeks ago.

>I propose we take one of two courses:
>
>1) Not add <discorseMarker> and figure out where it should go and how it
>should be used in Aug.
>
I don't think discussion of a primarily Bible-related element should be 
postponed until a meeting where the emphasis is non-Bibles--especially 
if the primary proponents of <discourseMarker> might not be present.

>2) Let <discorseMarker> be a child of anything that <divineName> is
>currently a child of and let <discorseMarker> have the same children as
><divineName>.  With the necessary accommodations for containing each
>other.
>
>  
>
I guess I'm still uncertain of the meaning of this element.  From the 
samples I was shown, it truly seemed that this element was to be used 
for marking speech acts, specifically indirect quotations.  If that's 
the case, then I believe we ought to figure out what this element is 
for/where it can occur/etc.

On the other hand, if it's really a marked for discourse divisions in 
the linguistic sense, <discourseMarker> really is too vague to be 
meaningful and the whole issue should probably be left to LAWG instead 
since it's not a core issue.

I can't see any reason why <discourseMarker> would have the same 
parents/children <divineName>.

--Chris (finally back home in California)