[sword-devel] TEI formatting, duplicated key (BDB Glosses)
dmsmith at crosswire.org
Mon Apr 30 10:25:04 MST 2012
On 04/30/2012 10:36 AM, Jonathan Morgan wrote:
> Hi DM,
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 12:00 AM, DM Smith <dmsmith at crosswire.org
> <mailto:dmsmith at crosswire.org>> wrote:
> On 04/30/2012 09:37 AM, Daniel Owens wrote:
> On 04/30/2012 06:54 AM, Chris Little wrote:
> On 4/30/2012 4:39 AM, David Troidl wrote:
> Hi Chris,
> I'm certainly no expert on your TEI dictionaries, but
> wouldn't it make
> sense to have the first key be one that would sort
> properly, and present
> the dictionary in true alphabetical order? I'm
> thinking of Middle
> Liddell, as well as the Hebrew. This key wouldn't even
> necessarily have
> to be shown to the user. The second key, the title,
> could then maintain
> the proper accents for display, without hindering
> sorting, searching or
> I confess, I don't understand what you're proposing this
> as an alternative to.
> In the example Karl cites, there's just one actual key per
> entry. It is an uppercased version of the entryFree's n
> attribute. This is the key that is sorted.
> The un-uppercased version from the n attribute is being
> rendered as part of the entry text via the TEI filters.
> This is the part I'm proposing we retain, but render
> somewhere else, e.g. right-justified at the bottom of the
> We also render all the text of the entry, which in these
> cases includes the text from a title element.
> I don't know what 'true alphabetical order' means, but if
> you mean localized sort order, it's not possible with the
> current implementation of this module type.
> I think David's concern is something that needs to be dealt
> with. A number of possibilities could be pursued, some of them
> 1. The current implementation is to sort by unicode code
> points. This works particularly well with numeric keys. A
> quick solution for languages for which such sorting is not
> alphabetical would be to follow David's suggestion of using
> keys that the user does not even see. This has the advantage
> of providing a workable solution right away, but there are
> some problems with this. First, we could create a new
> "strongs" standard because the current implementation does not
> actually hide keys. That could be solved by making the keys so
> obscure that no one would remember them. Second, any future,
> more robust solution would require reworking all modules keyed
> to it. I have toyed with this solution, and it might be the
> pragmatic way forward, but it is not ideal.
> 2. A localized sort order, which I think this is what David
> means by true alphabetical order, would be a better long-term
> 3. In addition, using genbooks for lexica would work for
> lexica that are sorted by root, with subentries nested in a
> hierarchy, just like in the Hesychius module and BDB. I have
> been working with Troy on this. Unfortunately, front-ends do
> not recognize the Feature=HebrewDef option in the conf file
> and allow genbooks as lexica. I can send anyone an example
> lexicon if you are interested in working on this. In that
> case, instead of @n as the key, */x-entry/@osisID would be the
> Any thoughts?
> I think there is a problem with the sorting of entries in
> dictionaries where the keys are not ascii. I don't remember the
> details, but I seem to remember it having been discussed here.
> For JSword, we'll be building a Lucene search index for the key,
> the term and the whole entry. A user lookup will be normalized and
> the search will return the key with which lookup will proceed
> internally as it does today. ICU provides the ability to create a
> localized sort key (not at all suitable for display) that can be
> used to sort dictionary entries for the end-users locale. I'm
> thinking that for TEI dictionaries the representation of the key
> should not be shown at all.
> BPBible, and I believe some other frontends as well use binary search
> on the original module order to locate a key in a virtual list. This
> provides very noticeable speedups on large dictionaries like ISBE. I
> think this would require the original module creation to place a
> module in localised key order if we really wanted to order by that,
> not just have a lookup which as I understand it would only be done
> when actually looking for a key? It also really means that a module
> can be sorted in one and only one way.
> Then again, I'm not even sure we can guarantee any kind of binary
> search on localised keys.
> A related issue for English dictionaries is allowing mixed-case
> dictionary keys (and I think I have heard similar comments about Greek
> and maybe other languages). At the moment I think SWORD requires
> dictionary keys to be upper-case to ensure that they sort correctly,
> but really "Aaron's Rod" looks much better than "AARON'S ROD".
> BPBible now attempts to automatically and heuristically turn keys to
> mixed case, which I think looks a lot better, but ideally this would
> be done in the same way as for other languages: separating sort order
> from codepoint order in some way.
The idea given above is to have an index to the SWORD index. It can be
built to be ordered and accessed in whatever way is needed to solve the
As you note, the problem is that SWORD makes severe assumptions about
the order and nature of the keys. Unless care is taken uppercasing is
not always appropriate. For example in Turkish the uppercase of 'i' is
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the sword-devel