<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 02/10/2012 02:00 AM, Jonathan Morgan wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOOKcO5yj+CKTU=fDhMkuDT7O-Zq2E6U6Cnf6aS_A2FYdLKoRQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Hi all,<br>
<br>
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 few questions:<br>
1. What will it take for this specification to be "Complete"?<br>
</blockquote>
Regarding JSword, we need to finish av11n first. After that and
maybe part of that release I'll push for this. Until it is codified
in SWORD lib or it is added to the modules' confs, it won't be
complete.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOOKcO5yj+CKTU=fDhMkuDT7O-Zq2E6U6Cnf6aS_A2FYdLKoRQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">2. Are there plans to change the conf files of
existing modules that require it?</blockquote>
No. But I think it makes sense to do it.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOOKcO5yj+CKTU=fDhMkuDT7O-Zq2E6U6Cnf6aS_A2FYdLKoRQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"> If so, when?<br>
</blockquote>
Probably after Scope is implemented in SWORD lib, but it could go in
now.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOOKcO5yj+CKTU=fDhMkuDT7O-Zq2E6U6Cnf6aS_A2FYdLKoRQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">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).<br>
</blockquote>
IMHO, it should affect all those that use a versification. So,
commentaries as well.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOOKcO5yj+CKTU=fDhMkuDT7O-Zq2E6U6Cnf6aS_A2FYdLKoRQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
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 little complicated).<br>
</blockquote>
For JSword, I plan for it all to be in the engine. Frontends will
probably need to change to take advantage of the change.
Specifically, the Book (aka module) (Or possibly
ScopedVerisification) will need to be consulted for verses. That is
a scoped verse makes sense only in the context of the module from
which it comes. The difficult part is that a verse needs to stand
apart from a Book so that it can be used in parallel view of Bibles
that have different scopes.<br>
<br>
So for JSword, iteration is repeatedly asking a Book for the verse
following a particular one. But that is not the way it is now.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOOKcO5yj+CKTU=fDhMkuDT7O-Zq2E6U6Cnf6aS_A2FYdLKoRQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<br>
The reason I ask is because I've been fixing bugs in BPBible
handling of OT-only and NT-only books.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Jon<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Peter
von Kaehne <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:refdoc@gmx.net">refdoc@gmx.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Some of our
modules need a certain versification, but do not use all the<br>
books available in the versification. Sometimes this is the
result of<br>
the translation being incomplete, but sometimes this is the
result of a<br>
theological stance:<br>
<br>
Many translations in the former USSR area will use the synodal<br>
versification, but will at the same time not integrate DC
material.<br>
<br>
Currently on libsword frontends which support av11n a text
with Synodal<br>
v11n, but no DC material will have empty DC books and the
names will<br>
appear in the menus. This can be a serious detractor in areas
where<br>
people might consider the Bible being corrupted and the same
people<br>
unwilling to listen to lengthy explanations why DC is not
meant to be<br>
part of the Bible.<br>
<br>
Alternatively, many translations, while incomplete are meant
to be<br>
incomplete - e.g. are in a small language where people will
want to have<br>
parts of the Bible in their own mother tongue, but will
happily use the<br>
dominant language for more complete Bible study. A number of
our Iran<br>
region translations are of this kind. To have all books appear
in the<br>
menus when in reality there are and will ever only be e.g.
Genesis,<br>
Psalms, Luke, Acts and Romans is detracting.<br>
<br>
The best solution for all this would be a coverage entry in
the conf file.<br>
<br>
Chris suggested that this should be an OSISRef. I concur. It
is the most<br>
flexible way of implementing this and allows finegrained
control (if one<br>
wishes to have this)<br>
<br>
Can I propose therefore that we will add to "incomplete"
modules (in<br>
terms of the underlying versification) an entry<br>
<br>
Coverage=Gen,Psalm,Luke,Acts,Rom (sorry if the OSIS
abbreviations are<br>
off, but OSIS was meant)<br>
<br>
For some nonDC translations this might then be simply<br>
<br>
Coverage=Gen-Mal,Mat-Rev<br>
<br>
Others nonDC translations (with v111n where DC material is
interspersed)<br>
might require more finegrained references, including chapter
and verse<br>
references.<br>
<br>
Frontends then could implement this as part of their work to
make av11n<br>
work.<br>
<br>
Underlying is of course the versification of a particular
module - which<br>
will dictate which books are there in the first place, in
which order<br>
and which chapters/verses too.<br>
<br>
What does everyone think?<br>
<br>
Peter<br>
<br>
I am posting this to jsword too as I see that DM has started<br>
implementing av11n!! Great - thanks DM.<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>