You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We have several sources of glosses, and they have different advantages and purposes. We need simple attribute names that support the glosses we are using:
Cherith Mandarin glosses
Cherith English glosses
SIL English glosses - broken down in a very interlinear-friendly way (as in Paratext SLT)
Berean Literal Bible (if we want them)
Obviously, glosses in other languages may also become a factor.
I don't particularly like attribute names like cherith-english in the following:
<Nodexmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"Cat="noun"morphId="130020160092"Unicode="עֲשָׂה־אֵ֖ל"nodeId="1300201600920010"StrongNumberX="6214"Greek="ασαηλ">
<ccherith-english="Asahel"cherith-chinese="亚撒黑"marble-sense="עֲשָׂהאֵל:003001007:Names of People:Asahel|שָׁלֹשׁ:002001001042:Quantity;002001003009:Frequency:three">
<mword="1CH 2:16!9"n="130020160092"morph="Np"lang="H"lemma="6214+"after="־"pos="noun"type="proper">עֲשָׂה</m>
<mword="1CH 2:16!10"n="130020160101"lang="H"after=""lemma="6214"morph="Np"pos="noun"type="proper">אֵ֖ל</m>
</c>
</Node>
So we need a naming convention that gives us flexibility while keeping this simple. I don't think we need the attribute name to attribute the source, we can do that in documentation and copyright / license statements.
Any suggestions?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Should we bite the bullet and use namespaces? So far, we don't do this for anything else, and it does add complexity, e.g. people's path expressions may not match for reasons they do not understand.
If we don't use namespaces, and have a small number of glosses, we can handle it using carefully chosen names. Less clean, but less confusing for some programmers:
Berean glosses could be identified as berean="...". For the GNT, we have been using them as a primary gloss. Should we allow ourselves to say gloss="...."?
We have several sources of glosses, and they have different advantages and purposes. We need simple attribute names that support the glosses we are using:
Obviously, glosses in other languages may also become a factor.
I don't particularly like attribute names like
cherith-english
in the following:So we need a naming convention that gives us flexibility while keeping this simple. I don't think we need the attribute name to attribute the source, we can do that in documentation and copyright / license statements.
Any suggestions?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: