<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">To confirm what others have said:
CrossWire has historically held the position that we are not the
keepers of any authoritative source documents. There are a number
of reasons for this, many have been stated already in this thread:
we are primarily a software development project, other projects
have a focus on being a document repository, authors and
publishers are best suited to keep authoritative sources of their
works, et. al. We work with these authoritative sources to
produce SWORD modules directly from the source.<br>
<br>
We DO MAINTAIN a link to the source where we obtained the
material; anyone wishing to use the data from one of our SWORD
modules SHOULD INSTEAD simply look at the source link in the
module .conf file and use that source instead. These are not our
works. We want to help others find the owners of these works, but
we don't want to pass on OUR CONVERSION of these works for many
reasons: they aren't ours, our conversions aren't always precise,
etc.<br>
We DO MAINTAIN the scripts we use to convert from that source to a
SWORD module (sword-tools svn repo)<br>
Our hope has always been for the module creation process FROM THE
AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE to be REPRODUCIBLE. (Automated is a dream,
and I'd love for someone to try to setup an automation process:
SOURCE -> scripts -> *2mod -> validate -> report, but
wouldn't encourage anyone because source formats and links change
so often I feel it would be a waste of time)<br>
<br>
These are all very important principles described both by
objectors and defenders in this thread.<br>
<br>
Summary: We don't want to be the place a programmer comes to find
data sources for their own projects.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 02/24/2014 01:57 PM, Matěj Cepl wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:1393275438.3077.7.camel@wycliff.ceplovi.cz"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 20:16 +0000, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I think the basic decision to not publish OSIS for texts we do not
maintain is sound. I have disagreed with it in the past, but once I
realised the Chinese whisper like deterioration of texts by project
copying from project copying from project my views changed.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I think you confuse two things (freely modifiable texts and assurance of
the code consistency … for the latter we have versioning control
systems, code review, canonical repositories, etc.; programmers don't
like random changes in their source code any more than the Biblical
scholars do), but that's not the point. Exactly for this purpose I said
"source code repository OR available maintainers".
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The plan is there, the idea is approved, the git stuff is up, what is
missing are the scripts and the overall glue.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Can I help somehow?
Best,
Matěj
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sword-devel@crosswire.org">sword-devel@crosswire.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel">http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel</a>
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>