On 02/10/2012 02:00 AM, Jonathan Morgan wrote:
Hi all,
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:
1. What will it take for this specification to be "Complete"?
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.
2. Are there plans to change the conf files of existing modules that
require it?
No. But I think it makes sense to do it.
If so, when?
Probably after Scope is implemented in SWORD lib, but it could go in now.
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).
IMHO, it should affect all those that use a versification. So,
commentaries as well.
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).
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.
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.
The reason I ask is because I've been fixing bugs in BPBible handling
of OT-only and NT-only books.
Thanks,
Jon
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Peter von Kaehne <ref...@gmx.net
<mailto:ref...@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
Coverage=Gen-Mal,Mat-Rev
Others nonDC translations (with v111n where DC material is
interspersed)
might require more finegrained references, including chapter and verse
references.
Frontends then could implement this as part of their work to make
av11n
work.
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?
Peter
I am posting this to jsword too as I see that DM has started
implementing av11n!! Great - thanks DM.
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
