[osis-core] osisSubjects?

[Patrick Durusau]

Todd,

In terms of the pending 2.0 release, I think Chris has a good case. 
Maybe with several thousand texts and a year or more of stability we may 
change our minds but I think we need to push this puppy out the door, 
get the docs written and software going.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

Chris Little wrote:
> Todd & Patrick,
> 
> Conceptually, Todd's suggestion is good, but I don't know how it would 
> work out in practice.  I would tend to favor our current implementation 
> (with defined values in osisSubjects).  Reasons below:
> 
> 1) I think the set of possible values is pretty low.  There aren't that 
> many groups defining their own subject classification systems.
> 
> 2) Symmetry with similar uses elsewhere in OSIS.  Usage of type on 
> subject is very similar to usage of type on identifier (to my mind), 
> which has values enumerated in osisIdentifier.
> 
> 3) It requires reference to documents that don't exist and probably 
> never will, in some cases because of copyright restrictions, in other 
> cases because of unwieldily huge amounts of data.
> 
> 4) The form of subject values is nothing like our osisIDs in form.  For 
> examples, LCSH subjects include things like, "Bible--Dictionaries.", " 
> Bible. English--Versions.", "Bible. N.T. Greek. 1871.", and "Bible. 
> N.T.--Commentaries.".  I think, given that a full inventory of the LCSH 
> would be essentially impossible to encode in a document, and would need 
> almost constant updating, the form given by the LOC is probably best 
> retained in each OSIS document that uses an LCSH itself.  In the absense 
> of a document that actually defines mappings of osisID-like strings to 
> actual subject values, implementers will invent their own attempted 
> mappings and we'll void any possibility of interoperability.
> 
> 5) If people need values other than what we provide they can suggest 
> them for inclusion in the next revision and/or use the 
> attributeExtension mechanism.
> 
> --Chris
> 
> 
> Patrick Durusau wrote:
> 
>> Todd,
>>
>> Todd Tillinghast wrote:
>>
>>> Patrick,
>>>
>>> Where did the enumerated values for osisSubjects come from?
>>>
>>
>> List that I hacked together. Could move to documentation and use as 
>> you suggest. Look for it in 1.9.4 (tomorrow morning).
>>
>> Comments anyone?
>>
>> Hope everyone is having a great day!
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>>> This list seems to have a narrow set of subject sets.
>>>
>>> This seems to be a limited set that would be better handled through the
>>> use of a prefix like and osisID/osisRef.  Where the work is a document
>>> that defines the set of subjects.  This is a scalable solution.
>>>
>>> I would suggest:
>>> <osisText>       <header>
>>>         <work osisWork="xyz">               ...
>>>             <subject>atla:Subject</subject>
>>>             ...
>>>         </work>
>>>         <work osisWork="atla">               ...
>>>         </work>
>>>     </header>
>>>     ...
>>> </osisText>
>>>
>>> This would also make the schema less brittle and allow for broader use.
>>>
>>> Todd
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> osis-core mailing list
>>> osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
>>> http://www.bibletechnologieswg.org/mailman/listinfo/osis-core
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Patrick.Durusau@sbl-site.org
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model

Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!