[sword-devel] OSIS feature support and questions
dmsmith at crosswire.org
Fri Oct 2 13:50:00 MST 2009
On 10/02/2009 04:18 PM, Matthew Talbert wrote:
>> It "seems" straightforward.
>> Does it handle "self"? (Which will be in dictionaries.)
> Doesn't appear to.
>> Does it handle Bible.KJV:reference or Bible.ref-system.work:reference? (I.e.
>> where the workID is not merely the name of the module but contains other
>> info?) At least it should then split on '.' and take the last part.
> Looks like it does something with things like Bible.Vulgate, etc, but
> it doesn't look very sophisticated.
>> Does it handle all valid osisRefs? E.g.
>> osisRef="ESV:Matt.1.1-Matt.2.3,Gen.1.1" (discontiguous range)
> Yes and no. It appears it will get output as
> sword://Matt.1.-1-Matt.2.3,Gen.1.1 which will then get interpreted by
> the frontend. In the case of Xiphos, we'd just hand this back to SWORD
> to parse. I don't know if you would always get expected results here.
>> I remember that. And since I'm not much of a SWORD programmer, I didn't say
>> My point: By having a workable mechanism in the engine that is updated as
>> needed to handle more and more of the osisRef spec, more front-ends can
>> share the fruits of labor.
>> Troy and Chris stated, in those email threads, it is essentially a front-end
>> issue. I won't argue that. But it is one that has to be solved by each
>> front-end. It would be nice for the solution to be done once and shared.
> I don't disagree. I just wanted to point out that basic support
> already exists (it would be trivial for BT to provide the same level
> of support that Xiphos already has). If people start using it, perhaps
> there will be more pressure to make it better. If no one actually
> needs or uses the more advanced concepts, then it will be unnecessary
> to add more functionality.
I think we already have the need. We have module writers asking what
they can do and whether SWORD supports it. Having support in the engine
encourages module writers to write OSIS according to the spec.
Additionally, we have some commentaries and gen books with references to
verses that are not in the KJV versification. Even our KJV module's
notes have references to verses that are deuterocanonical. We should at
least mark those that are not in the KJV versification as to which v11n
that they use.
Some of the commentaries on my bookshelf have a note such as "all
Biblical references and quotes are to the XXX version, unless otherwise
noted." I imagine that some of the commentaries.
I think there is some utility in having the type of work be part of the
key. That way if a module is not installed, the lookup can be done in
the default work for that type. E.g. Dict.ABC:xxx. With just ABC:xxx,
one cannot know that the reference is to a dictionary and offer to look
up the word elsewhere.
More information about the sword-devel