[sword-devel] Concerns about Alternate Versification

Jonathan Morgan jonmmorgan at gmail.com
Tue Jan 6 22:51:31 MST 2009

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Eeli Kaikkonen
<eekaikko at mail.student.oulu.fi> wrote:
> Familie von Kaehne wrote:
>> Not correct. The TSK or any other reference work will have used an
>> underlying particular versification - even if this is not documented.
> Not only that, but TSK uses explicitly several versifications. It refers to
> LXX with LXX versification. It's indicated by "book ch:v (LXX)" or something
> similar. This is true at least for the paper print. If this is not taken
> care of by module makers - as it most probably has not - the module creates
> faulty results when used in an application. For a high quality module we
> should detect all versifications and change the references accordingly,
> either with KJV v11n or with mapped references. And the only "high" quality
> solution for me would be to keep the original printed text and use mapped
> references internally. This means that we need a way to use several v11ns in
> OSIS and in software references (sword://reference(v11n)).

Peter was I presume referring me to
http://www.ccel.org/refsys/refsys.html.  There they use OSIS refs of
the form "Bible:Versification.Ps.2.1", and I think it would make sense
for us to use the same.  Probably it should be possible to use
Bible:Module.Ref to make a reference to that module's versification,
as opposed to Module.Ref to make a reference to that particular module
[Does that make sense?  Can we do better?]  If you wanted to translate
into sword:// terms, it might be worth something like
sword://Bible:Module/Ps/2/1 or whatever it is (and yes, that :
probably needs URL encoding).

> TSK is independent of any specific translation, but it's really dependent on
> couple of versification schemes. If we want to discuss about this, it's
> important to make distinction between the text and the outer appear of the
> reference - and the real reference. For example, we have a KJV verse Ps
> 56:1:
> "Be merciful unto me, O God: for man would swallow me up; he fighting daily
> oppresseth me."
> But in some other translations the same text is Ps 56:2. So this can be
> referenced as "Ps 56:1" within its original context, or "Ps 56:1 (KJV)" or
> "Ps 56:2 (OtherTrans)" in general context. But we are speaking of techical
> reference implementation here, not about any printed text. In printed text
> "Ps 56:2 (OtherTrans)" means always the text of the OtherTrans, it's not a
> technical reference to any translation.
> So, we should define our terms. There are at least three:
> - "Biblical text" or "text of a translation", e.g. "Be merciful..."
> - "Reference text" or "end user reference" (the visible text of a reference,
> e.g. "Ps 56:2"), maybe in generalized form.
> - "Technical reference" or "reference implementation" or "software
> reference" which always includes the versification scheme. Independent of
> any visible appearance and book/ch/v indicators. Can be used to point to any
> translation if there is mapping and the translation scheme is known.
> As Peter said there are at least two use cases for different versifications:
> to see the reference texts as they are in the original printed version, and
> to refer to any work/translation generally. If we would need the first one
> only, it would be enough to have a mechanism which uses blindly any
> versification. The second one is needed if we want to use several modules
> together and yet provide the original versifications, and that's much more
> difficult. The need for mapping is so obvious it shouldn't even need a
> mention.
> There are difficulties with the frontends, too. They haven't been discussed
> at all yet IIRC.
> Should the frontend give possibility to change the default v11n? Users may
> have accustomed to a certain scheme and would like to use it for all modules
> so that they can use their favorite translation and still find references in
> other modules easily.

I think if you changed it it could make it hard to find things that
are specific to a translation (e.g. if I say I just want a standard
KJV versification without aprocrypha, and then use a version with
aprocrypha, any aprocryphal reference I entered couldn't be used
because it didn't exist in the standard KJV versification).

However, I do see what you are saying, and maybe it makes sense.  I
find it hard to think of a really workable UI for it.

> Should it be possible to use the module v11ns? When user has KJV open he
> would use KJV v11n and when he uses LXX he would use LXX v11n.

Surely that is what you would expect?  If I have version X open and
type in "Genesis 11:1" it should go to Genesis 11:1 in that version
(as opposed to clicking a link on Genesis 11:1, which may conceivably
have some translation done on it).

> Should the original v11ns be somehow visible even when some common v11n is
> used?
> How about parallel views? Should them use the KJV v11n or the given default
> v11n? Or should it be possible to select one of the used v11ns?

What I would probably do would be as close as possible to "use the
versification of the module on the left", assuming that is the
"primary" work (maybe allowing changing which one is primary, and I
suppose to keep Peter happy the first one should be the right one in
an RtoL environment).

If I were showing a chapter in parallel, here is a rough sketch of
what I would probably try to do:
1. See if the chapter exists in all modules (if not, it probably has
to be not displayed in that chapter).

2. Try and match the verses in the chapter up in order.  If one starts
the chapter earlier than the primary module, then you probably want to
put all the verses that are before in a pre-chapter block (possibly
with parallels in the other chapter for those verses if possible).
Similarly, if there is content at the end of the chapter that is not
present (or not present in that chapter) in the master version,
probably include that.

3. List verse by verse the master version, with parallels in other
versions where possible.

4. If verses are reordered, then it is probably worth treating the
whole section where there is no ordered mapping as if it was one
linked verse.
(e.g. if it is Revelation 16:16, then Rev 16:15 rather than vice
versa, then display the two verses with verse numbers in parallel with
the two verses in the master translation).

5. If there is no mapping or no clear mapping at all, use your own
discretion (if the worst comes to the worst, then just display the two
chapters next to each other, but not with the verses in parallel).

I know the chapter divisions aren't as clean and uniform as I am
propounding, but this kind of scheme provides a start for discussion
(I hope).  Being in parallel without a chapter view is possibly even
more interesting.

> Have the developers already thought about these? Have you decided to use
> some specific solution? I would like to hear.

I've thought about them.


More information about the sword-devel mailing list