[sword-devel] 1.7.2 release
chris at burrell.me.uk
Wed Jan 15 13:08:37 MST 2014
On 15 Jan 2014 15:13, "Chris Little" <chrislit at crosswire.org> wrote:
> On 1/15/2014 12:31 AM, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
>> On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 19:07 -0800, Chris Little wrote:
>>> I haven't looked at the code, but the idea of mapping between
>>> versification systems (not versifications of particular translations but
>>> versification systems, as we define them) is completely ridiculous.
>> Teus has already given a use case. The fact that most of our frontends
>> have parallel displays which do not work well with av11n is the other
>> compelling one.
>> The need for mapping has been discussed for many years on this mailing
>> list and has also been agreed. To call it 'completely ridiculous' is
>> neither reflecting what has been agreed upon nor the actual facts -
>> approximate mapping via an intermediate super-v11n system in a way as
Jsword simply uses kjv as intermediary and copes for bidirectional
splits/merges across kjv as well as extra/missing verses, chapters. The
fact that kjv has, has not or has a different mapping is irrelevant and you
can go from a to b without losing resolution.
>> Teus describes is a lot better than no mapping.
> As the person who collated all of the data and created all of the
versification systems used in Sword (with the exception of SynodalP(rot)),
I'm perhaps in the unique position of being able to state categorically
that it is, in fact, completely ridiculous to map between versification
systems that cover more than a single edition (or strict translations of
that edition, or translations that strictly follow another edition's
> You can safely map between the KJV(A), NRSV(A), MT, Leningrad, and Luther
systems. Those are all based on a single text. They are effectively
per-module versification systems where we included the versification system
in the library because the precise system is used broadly or the text
itself is of great significance. (SynodalP(rot) probably belongs in this
> You cannot map between Vulg, Catholic(2), LXX, German, Synodal, and
Orthodox and any other system because these aren't versification standards,
they are best-fit maximal coverage systems. They're more like collections
of vaguely similar (or sometimes rather dissimilar, but similarly named)
versification systems. They can be a bit like dialect continua: Similar
translations with similar source material may have very similar
versification systems, but other pairs of translations using the same
Versification value in Sword can have widely differing internal
Anything is better than nothing. And it usually is the case that all
Catholic Bibles will have roughly the same mapping. As you say they are
often collections of similar versification systems. In particular it's
useful for those commonly offset verses belonging in both kjv and other
> I've contemplated 'intermediate super-v11n's, as you term them, and
they're an intractable solution if they are any help at all.
That's exactly what we have in jsword so definitely not intractable. They
work quite well.
> Among the problems are that you can't simply map back to a Hebrew OT
based on the MT versification system and a Greek NT based on the GNT/NRSV
versification system. Even allowing for split verse mappings (which would
have the further complication of introducing irreversible verse folding in
Not true. We have bidirectional splits and JSword doesn't suffer from verse
there are quite a few other sources that people have used over the years
with unique verses (the LXX & Vulgate being the most significant).
>> Kostya's patch for v11n mapping is well known on this list, it has been
>> tentatively discussed several times, Troy has acknowledged its presence
>> on his list of things to look through - though that is a long time ago.
>> Troy also has highlighted various border cases which need a solution or
>> suggestions for solutions.
Would be interested to hear which as we've solved a number of these in
Problems with module variability has been
>> acknowledged as a problem, but also by all who asked for mapping
>> described as an acceptable error - i.e. better than no mapping.
>> JSWORD has now initial working code.
>> Further, quite unlike v11n systems there is probably no need to get it
>> right first time but improvements could happen in an iterative way. In
>> fact, i see no reason not to allow per-module user modification of
>> mapping in frontends, which would lay to rest all of your reservations
>> of mapping via v11n systems.
> A per-module versification mapping system would work fine. It requires a
lot of data, but it is what commercial Bible software does. It's also
explicitly not the topic at hand. In principle, I have no objection to or
criticism of per-module mapping.
>> Bible1 (v11n-1) -> v11n-1 generic mapping +/- bible-1 user-modifications
>> -> super v11n -> v11n-2 generic mapping +/- bible-2 user-modifications
>> -> Bible 2 (v11n-2)
> That's four mappings. Four opportunities to introduce error. Four
opportunities to fold verses together than can't effectively be split
again. And that brings me to the real problem with error, the real reason
for which 'something' is distinctly worse than 'nothing':
> With our current system (nothing), if two translations are viewed in
parallel and have the same versification system, they will be correctly
displayed in parallel. If their versification systems do not match, they
may have some offset, but the versification systems at least reflect the
native versifications and textual order/context of the texts.
That's unacceptable for several reasons. 1- Makes interlinears impossible
to do properly with lots of empty words all over the place. 2- Issues
arise frequently over chapter boundaries and most users/frontends work by
default with the unit of chapter. 3- Makes automatic word by word text
comparisons/diffs impossible especially in Psalms for example due to
headings vs verse 1 where the problem is easily solved
> If we start mapping on the basis of versification system "standard", as
they're defined in Sword, then when the versification systems of two texts
do not match and texts themselves don't closely reflect the "standard", we
end up shifting verses around to positions that reflect neither a parallel
verse nor the text's native versification.
Again not true of JSword. For example, you can simply map parts of verses
to other parts of other verses in any order you like. The two limitations
are that you will only ever display at a minimum the whole verse in each
case (not usually an issue and you can display these verses with
explanations). And within the same versification you can't currently make
new mappings (fixable). But you can map any part to any other part against
any other verse or verse range(s) of your choice. You can declare as many
parts as you like and name them whatever you like. Parts are just always
held against non-kjv versification.
I don't understand the shifting issue. Surely you follow at least the order
of verses in one versification. At least, we do.
> There would be a further complication, since the idiosyncratic variation
among individual texts' versifications tends to be additive, in that
mapping may lead to widespread stranding of verses outside their textual
That's purely an implementation detail of how you use the mappings. And
where we detect issues, we mark these outfor the user.
> Versification systems aren't random, but they can be so extremely
idiosyncratic that it sometimes seems like they might be. Per-module
mapping will work fine, but is difficult to implement (in terms of data
collection). Per-system mapping will work fine for about a dozen texts (I
would guess). Any sort of reliance on per-system mappings that involve one
of the best-fit maximal coverage versification systems (Vulg, Catholic(2),
LXX, German, Synodal, & Orthodox) will fail spectacularly
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the sword-devel