[sword-devel] SWORD link, and other misc. comments
dmsmith555 at yahoo.com
Mon Feb 5 11:09:20 MST 2007
Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> Agreed. To restate from my original post:
> It would be nice to extend SWORD linking, first to differentiate between
> self references and general Bible references, as I think adding 'self
> referencing' gives us the most bang for our... er... well, sacrifice of
> Would you be in favour of an implicitly defined work name, something
> like 'self' to use as an osisRef prefix?
Yes. That's what I suggested in one of my other "long winded" posts:)
I'll see about creating an OSIS test module for beta that we can use for
> DM Smith wrote:
>> I think as a new version of Strong's dictionary is being worked upon and
>> as people are contemplating the creation of OSIS commentaries, that we
>> need to decide how to mark up self referential links should be done. I
>> agree with you that we can hold off on the implementation of a more
>> general reference mechanism.
>> For a practical case, Biblical dictionaries often reference verses and other
>> In Strong's Hebrew Dictionary:
>> 11 Abraam ab-rah-am' of Hebrew origin (85); Abraham, the Hebrew
>> patriarch:--Abraham. (In Acts 7:16 the text should probably read Jacob.)
>> see HEBREW for 085
>> Also in TCR (Thompson's Chain Reference)
>> wife of Nabal, becomes David's wife 1Sa 25:3; 27:3; 30:5; 2Sa 2:2; 1Ch
>> 3:1 --SEE Notable Women, WOMEN
>> The Webster's dictionary is full of self references. (Who has ever read
>> a dictionary where a word is not defined in terms of another? :)
>> Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
>>> Hey DM. Thanks for pointing out the error in the manual. Regarless of
>>> the manual, the specification clearly states:
>>> <xs:attribute name="osisRefWork" type="osisWorkType" use="optional"
>> I did not think of looking there.
>>>> There is a deprecation of the osisRefWork in favor of a new mechanism
>>>> workPrefix, which allows one to associate specific paths with a workID.
>>>> However, it is, in my opionion, an unnecessary complication for this
>>> Where did you hear that "There is a deprecation of the osisRefWork"?
>>> I might understand such a thing with the inclusion of a new generic
>>> defaulting mechanism which we've been discussing, but I don't think
>>> anything has made it into the specification yet.
>> It is in the manual. In the OSIS manual it states the following:
>> "In OSIS versions through 2.0, specific attributes were provided to set
>> a default work prefix for osisIDs
>> (osisIDWork on the osisText element) and for osisRefs (osisRefWork on
>> the osisText element). These
>> attributes remain available in OSIS 2.1, but a more general defaulting
>> mechanism has been added.
>> In OSIS version 2.1 and later, the workPrefix element was added to make
>> it possible to specify a default
>> work prefix for the attributes on any element in an OSIS document."
>> The phrase "These attributes remain..., but...." to me indicate that the
>> latter mechanism is able/intended to replace the former. Perhaps, it was
>> badly worded.
>> Even as such, I don't like having multiple default mechanisms, because
>> it is harder to code and because Sword modules don't keep the OSIS
>> document header.
>>> The ideas for it began
>>> when we made an attempt to address Michael Paul Johnson's concerns
>>> regarding quote transformation for author preference and odd languages.
>>> I think we included the ability to give defaults for the quote tags,
>>> with intention to open it up to any tag, but didn't think we had gone
>>> that far yet.
>>> There is good history on the osis-core list regarding work defaulting
>>> and it was likely a heated discussion. I would rather not repeat the
>>> debate here. It is more complicated when you start hashing things out,
>>> and when you really think about it, is there a demand to write a
>>> reference from a book to another book? 'Type' doesn't really meet a
>>> demand I can think of, either.
>> I deliberately left out any mention of GenBooks, precisely because it is
>> messy. In the other modules, the structure and meaning of the modules
>> and their keys is fairly rigid and well-defined. In those cases, 'Type'
>> can work well.
>> I have seen some commentaries that declare that all quotes are from a
>> particular version of the Bible, unless otherwise noted. I think it
>> makes sense for the author of the module to declare that references are
>> to that version and to also note those that are to a different specific
>>> It's just not worth the hassle, in my
>>> opinion. I have many other high demand items on my list that seem to
>>> put this way off the radar. The information you've added has been, as
>>> always, well articulated and valuable; and I'm sure will be beneficial
>>> in the future if we ever do have a demand (as you have suggested in a
>>> previous email about new modules drive functionality).
>> I agree and thank you.
>>> How's the genbook support in jsword? ;)
>> GenBook is about half done. The harder half remains :)
>> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
>> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
More information about the sword-devel