[sword-devel] virtual modules
dmsmith555 at yahoo.com
Sun Jan 22 17:47:39 MST 2006
Chris Little wrote:
> DM Smith wrote:
>> Didn't think it was going to be easy. But I was going to start with
>> Bibles, since their structure is more well known and the problem
>> space would be greatly reduced. Besides, OSIS is not quite there yet
>> for describing a commentary (though one could use Bible markup, if it
>> is a verse by verse commentary) or a dictionary.
> Commentary structure in OSIS is actually well defined (and stable, I
> would say). You basically write what you want to write (using divs and
> p's, primarily, for structure), identify the annotation type (e.g.
> commentary) via the annotateType attribute, and then identify what it
> is you're annotating via the annotateRef attribute.
Thanks so much for this tidbit! I have read the manual several times,
but never grasped this. And though I now see it, I still don't fully
Now some questions regarding the "proper" construction of a commentary
that is Testament, Book, Chapter, Verse (TBCV) oriented. (From a Sword
Is annotateType an inherited attribute like xml:lang? (It is listed
along with xml:lang as a global attribute?) It would be such a pain to
put it on most elements. If so, how do you turn it off for quotations of
verses? (which I presume would be marked with the verse element, or is
that different, too?)
According to the manual an annotateRef has the same syntax as an
osisRef. And it clearly states that it requires a prefix to refer
externally. What is the preferred form for such a prefix? Should it be
Is the second one in the range needed?
What are the structural elements that should be used to indicate, TBC&V?
With a bible we have div for T&B, chapter for C and verse for V. Should
we use these same elements? Or should we use just div?
You have mentioned that it should be normative that milestones be used
to mark up verses and probably chapters as document structure could
easily overlap those elements. Should it be normative for commentaries also?
Does osis2mod work for commentaries with this markup? Will it look at
the annotateRef attribute? So far I have found that encoding a
commentary as a bible works, but I didn't know if anything else did.
> Dictionaries aren't well defined (in terms of structure internal to an
> entry), but the level with which Sword would likely interact with a
> dictionary is just the entry level itself (i.e. <div type="entry"/>).
In earlier discussions with the BT folks, they indicated that they were
going to base the dictionary work on TEI, but they were not there yet. I
have been looking at it extensively to figure out the best way to
represent a dictionary (i.e. Naves) and I am closer to actually doing
something. When I do, I'll probably float it by you and the folks here
and at BT.
With regard to the level of interaction by Sword, I think that there are
two or three distinct parts of a dictionary entry that Sword should
become concerned with. In the general case, it should be the term and
its definition. These should be marked up distinctly. The one will be
used as the key. (I understand that at the current time that Sword is
not concerned with anything more.)
In the special case of Strongs, I see at least one other part. The
Strong's Number is not actually the term, but it is the key. Or to think
of it another way, it is an alternate term/key. And, additionally, the
term is really the actual Greek or Hebrew, but currently it is present
in a transliteration. Having these separately marked up will provide us
with the ability to do really neat stuff. For example, one could allow
the user to see the Greek or Hebrew, or the transliteration, either as a
replacement, a choice or in addition to the number.
More information about the sword-devel