[osis-core] Issues for Dallas

[Chris Little]

Patrick,

Most of my issues are probably best categorized as content model changes:


1) Regarding 3.1.6. Verse splits

(Personally I think splidIDs are a bad thing in every circumstance where 
I've been forced to use them.  They force text to be encoded in an 
extrememly unnatural manner.)

Allowing <l> inside of <verse> and allowing <l> to not require <lg> seems 
like it would solve the line-related part of the problem.

It seems that issue 3.2.25. Stanza was the reason <lg> was created, wasn't 
it?

Isn't <lg> just a special version of <p> for lines?


2) lang/script/ews -- The lang vs. xml:lang issue is already identified. I
think we should also consider adding a script attribute at the same places
where lang currently is.  (Plenty of use cases exist Cyrillic vs. Latin
for Serbian being the most recognizable.)  I think I recall TEI having a 
similar facility for identifying script.

In terms of best practices for these attributes:

lang should be specified as RFC 3066 (currently the only mention of a 
language RFC in the schema is a reference to 1766, which this obsoletes, 
in the language element)

In addition, we should specify best practices for languages not covered by 
ISO 639.  x-E-... was suggested previously as a best practice for 
identifying languages included in the Ethnologue, but common practice at 
SIL and according to LINGUIST List, seems to be to use x-SIL-...

Additionally, I would recommend we specify LINGUIST List's codes for 
languages absent from ISO 639 and Ethnologue, using something like 
x-LING-....  (Their codes are available here:
http://saussure.linguistlist.org/cfdocs/new-website/LL-WorkingDirs/forms/langs/GetListOfAncientLgs.cfm
http://saussure.linguistlist.org/cfdocs/new-website/LL-WorkingDirs/forms/langs/GetListOfConstructedLgs.cfm
)

If we choose to add a script attribute, ISO 15924 would be the appropriate
standard to follow, but it is not final.  Their pattern for codes is
either of [A-Z][a-z]{3} or [0-9]{3} (Codes can be found here:  
http://www.evertype.com/standards/iso15924/document/dis15924.pdf)

I still don't know why ews is necessary, but it should at least be 
confined to some set of standard values if such a thing exists.


3) Regarding 2.2. Insert <divineName> in <catchWord> 

Also consider inserting <hi> in <catchWord>.  This issue comes up in the
TEV.


4) Regarding 3.2.18. Notes

Add cross-reference osisNotes type (unless there seems to be a better
practice)




--Chris