[osis-core] osisWorkType

[Chris Little]

Patrick,


None of these standard reference schemes can be used for the vast 
majority of texts we would encode.

> <p>
>     r-NA27 -- as used in most English Bibles, with slight variations.
> </p>

I'm sure this is just an oversight, but this should be revised.  NA27 is 
only useful for NT-only texts.

> <p>
>     r-Hebrew -- Hebrew tradition varies in several respects, the best
> known being that it number the proscriptions above Psalms as verse 1,
> and the beginning of the psalm proper as verse 2.
> </p>

This should probably be changed to MT or BHS (something more specific).

BFBS MAT prepared documents on the issue of reference systems for OSIS, 
which can be seen at http://www.bfbs.org.uk/osis/versification.htm. 
They recommended MT, LXX, Vulg, KJV, and Synodal.  We may want to add 
NRSVA to the list since it is our default versification scheme.

> Note that this is inconsistent with the current regex for work type:
> 
> <xs:simpleType name="osisWorkType">
>         <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
>             <xs:pattern 
> value="((\p{L}|\p{N}|_)+)((\.(\p{L}|\p{N}|_)+)*)?"/>
>         </xs:restriction>
> </xs:simpleType>
> 
> And also note that osisText currently has the following attribute:
> 
> <xs:attribute name="osisRefWork" type="osisWorkType" use="optional" 
> default="Bible"/>
> 
> Steve has suggested either just reserving them in the manual or possibly 
> changing the regex to force the "x-" before user defined works.
> 
> While I am sympathetic to the convention of using the "x-" for user 
> defined works, it would break backwards compatibility.
> 
> Any thoughts on texts that would break if this is enforced?
> 
> Can always just say these names are reserved and let it go at that. 
> (without the leading "r-" of course)

Wouldn't requiring x- for all user defined works break every existing 
document?

I don't see changing the regex like this as advantageous since, in the 
majority of instances where it is used, it will not hold one of the 
reference system values we enumerate.  I think simply defining them as 
standard reference system values in the manual is a good idea.

--Chris