[sword-devel] [jsword-devel] Av11n and coverage
jonmmorgan at gmail.com
Fri Feb 10 00:00:32 MST 2012
This proposal of Peter's received a lot of discussion back in January.
However, when I look at the Wiki I see that "Scope" is listed in the conf
file specification as a "proposed" conf file element which may change. A
1. What will it take for this specification to be "Complete"?
2. Are there plans to change the conf files of existing modules that
require it? If so, when?
3. Will/should this affect only Bibles, or will it affect commentaries as
well? (e.g. TDavid, which is theoretically only Psalms but in the current
SWORD version has some of the Psalms commentary under Malachi).
4. Will there be any changes at the engine level (e.g. to view Matthew 1:2
as an invalid reference for a book with only NT, and to change module
iteration appropriately if there are gaps), or will every frontend need to
parse and use the "Scope" parameter? (which from what I can see could get a
The reason I ask is because I've been fixing bugs in BPBible handling of
OT-only and NT-only books.
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Peter von Kaehne <refdoc at gmx.net> wrote:
> Some of our modules need a certain versification, but do not use all the
> books available in the versification. Sometimes this is the result of
> the translation being incomplete, but sometimes this is the result of a
> theological stance:
> Many translations in the former USSR area will use the synodal
> versification, but will at the same time not integrate DC material.
> Currently on libsword frontends which support av11n a text with Synodal
> v11n, but no DC material will have empty DC books and the names will
> appear in the menus. This can be a serious detractor in areas where
> people might consider the Bible being corrupted and the same people
> unwilling to listen to lengthy explanations why DC is not meant to be
> part of the Bible.
> Alternatively, many translations, while incomplete are meant to be
> incomplete - e.g. are in a small language where people will want to have
> parts of the Bible in their own mother tongue, but will happily use the
> dominant language for more complete Bible study. A number of our Iran
> region translations are of this kind. To have all books appear in the
> menus when in reality there are and will ever only be e.g. Genesis,
> Psalms, Luke, Acts and Romans is detracting.
> The best solution for all this would be a coverage entry in the conf file.
> Chris suggested that this should be an OSISRef. I concur. It is the most
> flexible way of implementing this and allows finegrained control (if one
> wishes to have this)
> Can I propose therefore that we will add to "incomplete" modules (in
> terms of the underlying versification) an entry
> Coverage=Gen,Psalm,Luke,Acts,Rom (sorry if the OSIS abbreviations are
> off, but OSIS was meant)
> For some nonDC translations this might then be simply
> Others nonDC translations (with v111n where DC material is interspersed)
> might require more finegrained references, including chapter and verse
> Frontends then could implement this as part of their work to make av11n
> Underlying is of course the versification of a particular module - which
> will dictate which books are there in the first place, in which order
> and which chapters/verses too.
> What does everyone think?
> I am posting this to jsword too as I see that DM has started
> implementing av11n!! Great - thanks DM.
> jsword-devel mailing list
> jsword-devel at crosswire.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the sword-devel