Re: [sword-devel] Status of OSIS?

[Michael H]

The reason I'm not just using markdown for everything is that all these
works have references. And it all comes down to how to handle those
references.

ThML scripture references include the attribute "scripRef" which describes
a specific work for the reference, but I'm not aware that ThML has anything
like a "versification" awareness.  So you can accurately specify a
reference to the ESV2011 Psalm 23:6, but if the reader doesn't have the ESV
loaded, and they do have the Douay Rheims Challoner Revision, how would
that reference be handled? Does the click take them anywhere near where the
author of the book intended them to get to?

Psalm 23:6 isn't always Psalm 23:6.. It might be Ps. 23:6, or Ps. 23:7, or
Ps. 24:6 or Ps. 24:7. Since it is ambiguous, it's incomplete. and
incomplete shouldn't be allowed. As far as I can tell ThML isn't designed
to deal with versification confusion. Is there a convention or solution for
this (a master table of values that provides the mapping from 'ThML
scripRef version' to 'versification'?

OSIS has versification awareness:  OSIS at least has the versification
named in the work, and the versification value should be available at every
scripture reference, either by inheritance, or explicitly.

And that's the core reason that OSIS represents a better solution (to me.)
I'm not saying versification as I've described is supported in front ends
properly, but I am saying I can be specific to  the versification of the
reference in each work, making it possible for front ends to work.


On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:55 PM Karl Kleinpaste  wrote:

> On 5/5/20 1:36 PM, Michael H wrote:
>
> it's the only option listed for genbooks in the howto section
>
>
> Obligatory "ThML for everything." :-/
>
> I've never produced an OSIS module, but a quick check says I've produced
> 89 ThML modules.  And there's some new ones I'm due to produce (BIBdraft
> and BSBdraft need to be updated/obsoleted, since the final datasets were
> released.)
>
> Seriously, there's nothing stopping you from using any SourceType= that
> you like.
>
> (Yes, yes, I know...All For OSIS and OSIS For All.)
> ___
> 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
___
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

Re: [sword-devel] Status of OSIS?

[Karl Kleinpaste]

On 5/5/20 1:36 PM, Michael H wrote:
> it's the only option listed for genbooks in the howto section

Obligatory "ThML for everything." :-/

I've never produced an OSIS module, but a quick check says I've produced
89 ThML modules.  And there's some new ones I'm due to produce (BIBdraft
and BSBdraft need to be updated/obsoleted, since the final datasets were
released.)

Seriously, there's nothing stopping you from using any SourceType= that
you like.

(Yes, yes, I know...All For OSIS and OSIS For All.)
___
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

Re: [sword-devel] Status of OSIS?

[Michael H]

Greg,

OSIS is the best choice for genbooks.  In fact, on the wiki (
wiki.crosswire.org) it's the only option listed for genbooks in the howto
section. I do understand that OSIS for scripture doesn't look like OSIS for
genbooks, and tools designed to convert scripture may not be well suited to
convert non-scripture into OSIS. Which is why i'm seeking all the tabular
information from the spec.

What's your recommendation for genbooks that contain a lot of scripture
references (and I want to make those live links).





On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 3:09 AM Greg Hellings 
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 1:07 PM Michael H  wrote:
>
>> I've got 40 works and growing that I've been meaning to look at creating
>> Sword Modules. All of these are genbooks. Almost 100% currently are works
>> by Andrew Murray (but the list is much bigger.)
>>
>> But, as I try to make sense of the OSIS spec, I'm facing a 2006 spec in
>> not very well done PDF, and another one with comments, and an xslt file,
>> and a mountain of comments on the wiki that span from outright errors, to
>> support gaps, to wishlist.
>>
>
> The only official place for OSIS stuff is in the XSLT.
>
> Also, if you're looking at genbooks, you mostly shouldn't be looking at
> OSIS. That's really only applicable to actual scriptural material or
> possibly commentaries. But it realy fits best in line with things that
> conform to a canonical book.chapter.verse scheme.
>
> --Greg
>
>>
>> What is the status of OSIS? Is there a draft or official source, or even
>> Crosswire source that we can at least fix typos to? I've started one, just
>> to turn Appendix F into a real table... but as I read through the wiki, now
>> it seems I'm going to have to process everything to be able to trust what
>> I'm reading, and it makes sense that I should be dropping the result
>> somewhere more official than my google drive.
>>
>> If we have permission to host the OSIS spec, do we have permission to
>> bugfix it (at least the spelling gaps, and fixing the tables of information
>> to be tabular?)
>> ___
>> 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
>
> ___
> 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
___
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

Re: [sword-devel] Status of OSIS?

[David Haslam]

I know Jeff Klassen of UBS ICAP.

We met in 2012 at the DB Summit.

David

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 05:33, Michael H  wrote:

> The Short answer about the OSIS spec tho
>
> For now, I've been coding the PDF -> text -> USFM intending to ultimately 
> convert it to either markdown or OSIS for longterm maintenance. markdown if 
> UBS maintains it, and OSIS if it's maintained at Crosswire.
>
> But my work in progress is:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/12TMgc_h4DWCWWjZ3B6dBOoynvyzMp4q-/view?usp=sharing
>
> I intend to get it to paragraphs with character styling, and the images 
> present. At that point it can turn into USFM, or OSIS, or Markdown. and once 
> a long term direction for ownership and maintainer becomes clear, the right 
> place to land it into a repo should be obvious and easy.
>
> But... does anyone have contact with Patrick and could query him for the 
> source?  If not, does anyone have contact with Jeff Klassen and could ask him 
> or have enough knowledge already to know that UBS won't have anything like 
> source code for OSIS manuals?
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:24 PM Michael H  wrote:
>
>> 1. What I mean by 'encoding' a copy (for my own use originally, but after 
>> trying to find the list of corrections... i'm on this thread thinking the 
>> work needs to be shared.)
>>
>> Problem:
>> The PDF has issues when you try to copy tabular information.. it was not 
>> generated to be reused digitally at all.. random text sequencing is present. 
>> (at least for me using both Adobe PDF REader and Ubuntu default PDF reader 
>> on Ubuntu 18.04, but I remember this from my windows days 12 years ago.
>>
>> My Personal Use:
>> I need those tables to become data tables for programming.  I 'code' in 
>> spreadsheets as much as possible. So, this morning I started trying to 
>> squeeze the lemon. And just like everyone, I run into text integrity issues, 
>> and thought this isn't working well enough, I need to find the source text. 
>> Query 1 was to Patrick Durasau, but the email in the spec is non-functional. 
>>  I traced him til 2013 when he was let go as the document manager of  OASIS 
>> (of OpenDocument/OpenOffice.) But while he crafted the text, he wasn't the 
>> owner. American Bible Society holds the copyright, so the logical first step 
>> is to query the guy managing USX and USFM about it. But even before that, 
>> the only live document on the web seems to be from crosswire (and ebible 
>> too... ) so that led me to this thread asking
>> a. Does crosswire have ownership of the OSIS spec now? (can we initiate 
>> changes, maintain it?)
>> b. does a project to at least bugfix the OSIS spec already exist?
>>
>> I think I've seen enough to understand that niether is true, so the logical 
>> next step (unless someone who was involved directly in 2006 can correct me) 
>> is to ask Jeff Klassen at UBS if there is source available from UBS, and 
>> what would we need to be able to become the maintainers or primary 
>> contributors to a project if they want to continue owning it.  However, 
>> sending that email when I've tried to draft it, I come across speaking for 
>> crosswire, which again prompted me to create this thread.
>>
>> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 2:49 PM DM Smith  wrote:
>>
>>> Can you clarify what you mean by “I’m encoding the entire spec for storage 
>>> in a source form….”?
>>>
>>> What has happened so far is that we’ve been responding with the 2006 2.1.1 
>>> version of the OSIS Spec. We host the file at 
>>> https://crosswire.org/osis/OSIS%202.1.1%20User%20Manual%2006March2006.pdf. 
>>> If I remember correctly, the PDF is generated from a different document to 
>>> which we don’t have access. If we wish to fix and improve that document, I 
>>> think we should see if we can formally take responsibility for it by 
>>> contacting Patrick Duruasau.
>>>
>>> Short of that we’ve been documenting shortcomings in the wiki.
>>>
>>> We do require valid OSIS. There have been bugs and shortcomings in the 
>>> schema. I’m the pumpkin keeper of that and have made a few changes that are 
>>> agreeable to this mailing list. We’ve attempted to document that in the 
>>> wiki. One of the considerations is whether the suggested change works with 
>>> how the SWORD and JSword engines understand the spec.
>>>
>>> You are right that the wiki is not issue tracker and gets harder to 
>>> understand as more gets added to it. David and I have tried to have the 
>>> wiki on OSIS be an addendum to the spec. And guidance on how to build a 
>>> SWORD module using it.
>>>
>>> Do you have a suggestion on to get from where we are to where you think we 
>>> should be?
>>>
>>> In Him,
>>> DM
>>>
 On May 4, 2020, at 3:12 PM, Michael H  wrote:

 David,

 That page you refer to is the problem that created this email.

 The page you refer to shouldn't exist like it does.. that information 
 should be going onto a problem ticket system. (Think the 'issue 

Re: [sword-devel] Status of OSIS?

[David Haslam]

OSIS is no longer the only XML schema in common use for Scripture markup.

It seems to be the case that all the founder agencies connected with the DBL 
more or less lost interest in OSIS with the advent of USX. I know for sure that 
YouVersion uses USX for Bible import.

Apart from CrossWire, who else now uses OSIS ?

This is not to denigrate OSIS which we have used and supported for so long.

David

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 05:24, Michael H  wrote:

> 1. What I mean by 'encoding' a copy (for my own use originally, but after 
> trying to find the list of corrections... i'm on this thread thinking the 
> work needs to be shared.)
>
> Problem:
> The PDF has issues when you try to copy tabular information.. it was not 
> generated to be reused digitally at all.. random text sequencing is present. 
> (at least for me using both Adobe PDF REader and Ubuntu default PDF reader on 
> Ubuntu 18.04, but I remember this from my windows days 12 years ago.
>
> My Personal Use:
> I need those tables to become data tables for programming.  I 'code' in 
> spreadsheets as much as possible. So, this morning I started trying to 
> squeeze the lemon. And just like everyone, I run into text integrity issues, 
> and thought this isn't working well enough, I need to find the source text. 
> Query 1 was to Patrick Durasau, but the email in the spec is non-functional.  
> I traced him til 2013 when he was let go as the document manager of  OASIS 
> (of OpenDocument/OpenOffice.) But while he crafted the text, he wasn't the 
> owner. American Bible Society holds the copyright, so the logical first step 
> is to query the guy managing USX and USFM about it. But even before that, the 
> only live document on the web seems to be from crosswire (and ebible too... ) 
> so that led me to this thread asking
> a. Does crosswire have ownership of the OSIS spec now? (can we initiate 
> changes, maintain it?)
> b. does a project to at least bugfix the OSIS spec already exist?
>
> I think I've seen enough to understand that niether is true, so the logical 
> next step (unless someone who was involved directly in 2006 can correct me) 
> is to ask Jeff Klassen at UBS if there is source available from UBS, and what 
> would we need to be able to become the maintainers or primary contributors to 
> a project if they want to continue owning it.  However, sending that email 
> when I've tried to draft it, I come across speaking for crosswire, which 
> again prompted me to create this thread.
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 2:49 PM DM Smith  wrote:
>
>> Can you clarify what you mean by “I’m encoding the entire spec for storage 
>> in a source form….”?
>>
>> What has happened so far is that we’ve been responding with the 2006 2.1.1 
>> version of the OSIS Spec. We host the file at 
>> https://crosswire.org/osis/OSIS%202.1.1%20User%20Manual%2006March2006.pdf. 
>> If I remember correctly, the PDF is generated from a different document to 
>> which we don’t have access. If we wish to fix and improve that document, I 
>> think we should see if we can formally take responsibility for it by 
>> contacting Patrick Duruasau.
>>
>> Short of that we’ve been documenting shortcomings in the wiki.
>>
>> We do require valid OSIS. There have been bugs and shortcomings in the 
>> schema. I’m the pumpkin keeper of that and have made a few changes that are 
>> agreeable to this mailing list. We’ve attempted to document that in the 
>> wiki. One of the considerations is whether the suggested change works with 
>> how the SWORD and JSword engines understand the spec.
>>
>> You are right that the wiki is not issue tracker and gets harder to 
>> understand as more gets added to it. David and I have tried to have the wiki 
>> on OSIS be an addendum to the spec. And guidance on how to build a SWORD 
>> module using it.
>>
>> Do you have a suggestion on to get from where we are to where you think we 
>> should be?
>>
>> In Him,
>> DM
>>
>>> On May 4, 2020, at 3:12 PM, Michael H  wrote:
>>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> That page you refer to is the problem that created this email.
>>>
>>> The page you refer to shouldn't exist like it does.. that information 
>>> should be going onto a problem ticket system. (Think the 'issue tracker' on 
>>> the USFM 3 list.  It's searchable and the status of most items is clear, 
>>> and anything already acted on is already on the official documentation 
>>> pages.)
>>>
>>> That collection of pages in its current form provides little information. 
>>> it's not sorted by status of investigation/implementation, nor by the 
>>> spec's organization, but rather by the impression of the author as to it's 
>>> nature.  It seems to be a collection of writings, some of which describe 
>>> real problems that have been acted on already, some that describe 
>>> misspellings (but can safely be ignored for module creation.), and some 
>>> that fit into "wishlist" meaning even if they're in the 'bug' category and 
>>> actually bugs, they aren't 

Re: [sword-devel] Status of OSIS?

[Greg Hellings]

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 1:07 PM Michael H  wrote:

> I've got 40 works and growing that I've been meaning to look at creating
> Sword Modules. All of these are genbooks. Almost 100% currently are works
> by Andrew Murray (but the list is much bigger.)
>
> But, as I try to make sense of the OSIS spec, I'm facing a 2006 spec in
> not very well done PDF, and another one with comments, and an xslt file,
> and a mountain of comments on the wiki that span from outright errors, to
> support gaps, to wishlist.
>

The only official place for OSIS stuff is in the XSLT.

Also, if you're looking at genbooks, you mostly shouldn't be looking at
OSIS. That's really only applicable to actual scriptural material or
possibly commentaries. But it realy fits best in line with things that
conform to a canonical book.chapter.verse scheme.

--Greg

>
> What is the status of OSIS? Is there a draft or official source, or even
> Crosswire source that we can at least fix typos to? I've started one, just
> to turn Appendix F into a real table... but as I read through the wiki, now
> it seems I'm going to have to process everything to be able to trust what
> I'm reading, and it makes sense that I should be dropping the result
> somewhere more official than my google drive.
>
> If we have permission to host the OSIS spec, do we have permission to
> bugfix it (at least the spelling gaps, and fixing the tables of information
> to be tabular?)
> ___
> 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
___
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

Re: [sword-devel] Status of OSIS?

[Michael H]

The Short answer about the OSIS spec tho

For now, I've been coding the PDF -> text -> USFM intending to ultimately
convert it to either markdown or OSIS for longterm maintenance. markdown if
UBS maintains it, and OSIS if it's maintained at Crosswire.

But my work in progress is:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12TMgc_h4DWCWWjZ3B6dBOoynvyzMp4q-/view?usp=sharing

I intend to get it to paragraphs with character styling, and the images
present. At that point it can turn into USFM, or OSIS, or Markdown. and
once a long term direction for ownership and maintainer becomes clear, the
right place to land it into a repo should be obvious and easy.

But... does anyone have contact with Patrick and could query him for the
source?  If not, does anyone have contact with Jeff Klassen and could ask
him or have enough knowledge already to know that UBS won't have anything
like source code for OSIS manuals?


On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:24 PM Michael H  wrote:

> 1. What I mean by 'encoding' a copy (for my own use originally, but after
> trying to find the list of corrections... i'm on this thread thinking the
> work needs to be shared.)
>
> Problem:
> The PDF has issues when you try to copy tabular information.. it was not
> generated to be reused digitally at all.. random text sequencing is
> present. (at least for me using both Adobe PDF REader and Ubuntu default
> PDF reader on Ubuntu 18.04, but I remember this from my windows days 12
> years ago.
>
> My Personal Use:
> I need those tables to become data tables for programming.  I 'code' in
> spreadsheets as much as possible. So, this morning I started trying to
> squeeze the lemon. And just like everyone, I run into text integrity
> issues, and thought this isn't working well enough, I need to find the
> source text. Query 1 was to Patrick Durasau, but the email in the spec is
> non-functional.  I traced him til 2013 when he was let go as the document
> manager of  OASIS (of OpenDocument/OpenOffice.) But while he crafted the
> text, he wasn't the owner. American Bible Society holds the copyright, so
> the logical first step is to query the guy managing USX and USFM about it.
> But even before that, the only live document on the web seems to be from
> crosswire (and ebible too... ) so that led me to this thread asking
> a. Does crosswire have ownership of the OSIS spec now? (can we initiate
> changes, maintain it?)
> b. does a project to at least bugfix the OSIS spec already exist?
>
> I think I've seen enough to understand that niether is true, so the
> logical next step (unless someone who was involved directly in 2006 can
> correct me) is to ask Jeff Klassen at UBS if there is source available from
> UBS, and what would we need to be able to become the maintainers or primary
> contributors to a project if they want to continue owning it.  However,
> sending that email when I've tried to draft it, I come across speaking for
> crosswire, which again prompted me to create this thread.
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 2:49 PM DM Smith  wrote:
>
>> Can you clarify what you mean by “I’m encoding the entire spec for
>> storage in a source form….”?
>>
>> What has happened so far is that we’ve been responding with the 2006
>> 2.1.1 version of the OSIS Spec. We host the file at
>> https://crosswire.org/osis/OSIS%202.1.1%20User%20Manual%2006March2006.pdf.
>> If I remember correctly, the PDF is generated from a different document to
>> which we don’t have access. If we wish to fix and improve that document, I
>> think we should see if we can formally take responsibility for it by
>> contacting Patrick Duruasau.
>>
>> Short of that we’ve been documenting shortcomings in the wiki.
>>
>> We do require valid OSIS. There have been bugs and shortcomings in the
>> schema. I’m the pumpkin keeper of that and have made a few changes that are
>> agreeable to this mailing list. We’ve attempted to document that in the
>> wiki. One of the considerations is whether the suggested change works with
>> how the SWORD and JSword engines understand the spec.
>>
>> You are right that the wiki is not issue tracker and gets harder to
>> understand as more gets added to it. David and I have tried to have the
>> wiki on OSIS be an addendum to the spec. And guidance on how to build a
>> SWORD module using it.
>>
>> Do you have a suggestion on to get from where we are to where you think
>> we should be?
>>
>> In Him,
>> DM
>>
>> On May 4, 2020, at 3:12 PM, Michael H  wrote:
>>
>> David,
>>
>> That page you refer to is the problem that created this email.
>>
>> The page you refer to shouldn't exist like it does.. that information
>> should be going onto a problem ticket system. (Think the 'issue tracker' on
>> the USFM 3 list.  It's searchable and the status of most items is clear,
>> and anything already acted on is already on the official documentation
>> pages.)
>>
>> That collection of pages in its current form provides little information.
>> it's not sorted by status of investigation/implementation, nor 

Re: [sword-devel] Status of OSIS?

[Michael H]

1. What I mean by 'encoding' a copy (for my own use originally, but after
trying to find the list of corrections... i'm on this thread thinking the
work needs to be shared.)

Problem:
The PDF has issues when you try to copy tabular information.. it was not
generated to be reused digitally at all.. random text sequencing is
present. (at least for me using both Adobe PDF REader and Ubuntu default
PDF reader on Ubuntu 18.04, but I remember this from my windows days 12
years ago.

My Personal Use:
I need those tables to become data tables for programming.  I 'code' in
spreadsheets as much as possible. So, this morning I started trying to
squeeze the lemon. And just like everyone, I run into text integrity
issues, and thought this isn't working well enough, I need to find the
source text. Query 1 was to Patrick Durasau, but the email in the spec is
non-functional.  I traced him til 2013 when he was let go as the document
manager of  OASIS (of OpenDocument/OpenOffice.) But while he crafted the
text, he wasn't the owner. American Bible Society holds the copyright, so
the logical first step is to query the guy managing USX and USFM about it.
But even before that, the only live document on the web seems to be from
crosswire (and ebible too... ) so that led me to this thread asking
a. Does crosswire have ownership of the OSIS spec now? (can we initiate
changes, maintain it?)
b. does a project to at least bugfix the OSIS spec already exist?

I think I've seen enough to understand that niether is true, so the logical
next step (unless someone who was involved directly in 2006 can correct me)
is to ask Jeff Klassen at UBS if there is source available from UBS, and
what would we need to be able to become the maintainers or primary
contributors to a project if they want to continue owning it.  However,
sending that email when I've tried to draft it, I come across speaking for
crosswire, which again prompted me to create this thread.



On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 2:49 PM DM Smith  wrote:

> Can you clarify what you mean by “I’m encoding the entire spec for storage
> in a source form….”?
>
> What has happened so far is that we’ve been responding with the 2006 2.1.1
> version of the OSIS Spec. We host the file at
> https://crosswire.org/osis/OSIS%202.1.1%20User%20Manual%2006March2006.pdf.
> If I remember correctly, the PDF is generated from a different document to
> which we don’t have access. If we wish to fix and improve that document, I
> think we should see if we can formally take responsibility for it by
> contacting Patrick Duruasau.
>
> Short of that we’ve been documenting shortcomings in the wiki.
>
> We do require valid OSIS. There have been bugs and shortcomings in the
> schema. I’m the pumpkin keeper of that and have made a few changes that are
> agreeable to this mailing list. We’ve attempted to document that in the
> wiki. One of the considerations is whether the suggested change works with
> how the SWORD and JSword engines understand the spec.
>
> You are right that the wiki is not issue tracker and gets harder to
> understand as more gets added to it. David and I have tried to have the
> wiki on OSIS be an addendum to the spec. And guidance on how to build a
> SWORD module using it.
>
> Do you have a suggestion on to get from where we are to where you think we
> should be?
>
> In Him,
> DM
>
> On May 4, 2020, at 3:12 PM, Michael H  wrote:
>
> David,
>
> That page you refer to is the problem that created this email.
>
> The page you refer to shouldn't exist like it does.. that information
> should be going onto a problem ticket system. (Think the 'issue tracker' on
> the USFM 3 list.  It's searchable and the status of most items is clear,
> and anything already acted on is already on the official documentation
> pages.)
>
> That collection of pages in its current form provides little information.
> it's not sorted by status of investigation/implementation, nor by the
> spec's organization, but rather by the impression of the author as to it's
> nature.  It seems to be a collection of writings, some of which describe
> real problems that have been acted on already, some that describe
> misspellings (but can safely be ignored for module creation.), and some
> that fit into "wishlist" meaning even if they're in the 'bug' category and
> actually bugs, they aren't affecting what happens today. Each writing in
> the wiki will have to be processed before I can code. I can't see any clear
> status marker present so I can sort the already dones from the wishlist.
>
> THATS what I'm suggesting/working toward.  I'm encoding the entire spec
> for storage in a source form, so that implemented bugfixes can be updated
> into the spec. We should not have to go through megabytes of text to find 3
> misleading characters in the spec that will break every module someone
> trying to follow the spec will run into. I've seen enough in the wiki that
> I'm pretty sure there's at least on issue listed there that is likely to be
> in 

Re: [sword-devel] Status of OSIS?

[Michael Johnson]

FWIW, there is a public archive of OSIS standard information at 
https://ebible.org/osis/, but it is not being edited or improved in any way. It 
just documents what the standard was when it was last officially maintained.

On 5/4/20 8:24 AM, David Haslam wrote:
> Have you looked at our Wiki page?
>
> OSIS 211 CR
>
> It was even edited again today!
>
> The Bible Technologies Group has not met for years & the original website 
> went AWOL. 
>
> It may well be the case that CrossWire is the only remaining de facto 
> maintainer of OSIS. 
>
> Best regards,
>
> David 
>
> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 19:07, Michael H  > wrote:
>> I've got 40 works and growing that I've been meaning to look at creating 
>> Sword Modules. All of these are genbooks. Almost 100% currently are works by 
>> Andrew Murray (but the list is much bigger.) 
>>
>> But, as I try to make sense of the OSIS spec, I'm facing a 2006 spec in not 
>> very well done PDF, and another one with comments, and an xslt file, and a 
>> mountain of comments on the wiki that span from outright errors, to support 
>> gaps, to wishlist. 
>>
>> What is the status of OSIS? Is there a draft or official source, or even 
>> Crosswire source that we can at least fix typos to? I've started one, just 
>> to turn Appendix F into a real table... but as I read through the wiki, now 
>> it seems I'm going to have to process everything to be able to trust what 
>> I'm reading, and it makes sense that I should be dropping the result 
>> somewhere more official than my google drive. 
>>
>> If we have permission to host the OSIS spec, do we have permission to bugfix 
>> it (at least the spelling gaps, and fixing the tables of information to be 
>> tabular?) 
>
>
>
> ___
> 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


-- 
signature

Aloha,
*/Michael Johnson/**
26 HIWALANI LOOP • MAKAWAO HI 96768-8747*• USA
mljohnson.org  • Phone: +1 808-333-6921 • Skype: 
kahunapule


___
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

Re: [sword-devel] Status of OSIS?

[David Haslam]

Have you looked at our Wiki page?

OSIS 211 CR

It was even edited again today!

The Bible Technologies Group has not met for years & the original website went 
AWOL.

It may well be the case that CrossWire is the only remaining de facto 
maintainer of OSIS.

Best regards,

David

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 19:07, Michael H  wrote:

> I've got 40 works and growing that I've been meaning to look at creating 
> Sword Modules. All of these are genbooks. Almost 100% currently are works by 
> Andrew Murray (but the list is much bigger.)
>
> But, as I try to make sense of the OSIS spec, I'm facing a 2006 spec in not 
> very well done PDF, and another one with comments, and an xslt file, and a 
> mountain of comments on the wiki that span from outright errors, to support 
> gaps, to wishlist.
>
> What is the status of OSIS? Is there a draft or official source, or even 
> Crosswire source that we can at least fix typos to? I've started one, just to 
> turn Appendix F into a real table... but as I read through the wiki, now it 
> seems I'm going to have to process everything to be able to trust what I'm 
> reading, and it makes sense that I should be dropping the result somewhere 
> more official than my google drive.
>
> If we have permission to host the OSIS spec, do we have permission to bugfix 
> it (at least the spelling gaps, and fixing the tables of information to be 
> tabular?)___
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

Re: [sword-devel] Status of OSIS?

[DM Smith]

Can you clarify what you mean by “I’m encoding the entire spec for storage in a 
source form….”?

What has happened so far is that we’ve been responding with the 2006 2.1.1 
version of the OSIS Spec. We host the file at 
https://crosswire.org/osis/OSIS%202.1.1%20User%20Manual%2006March2006.pdf 
. If 
I remember correctly, the PDF is generated from a different document to which 
we don’t have access. If we wish to fix and improve that document, I think we 
should see if we can formally take responsibility for it by contacting Patrick 
Duruasau.

Short of that we’ve been documenting shortcomings in the wiki.

We do require valid OSIS. There have been bugs and shortcomings in the schema. 
I’m the pumpkin keeper of that and have made a few changes that are agreeable 
to this mailing list. We’ve attempted to document that in the wiki. One of the 
considerations is whether the suggested change works with how the SWORD and 
JSword engines understand the spec.

You are right that the wiki is not issue tracker and gets harder to understand 
as more gets added to it. David and I have tried to have the wiki on OSIS be an 
addendum to the spec. And guidance on how to build a SWORD module using it.

Do you have a suggestion on to get from where we are to where you think we 
should be? 

In Him,
DM

> On May 4, 2020, at 3:12 PM, Michael H  wrote:
> 
> David, 
> 
> That page you refer to is the problem that created this email. 
> 
> The page you refer to shouldn't exist like it does.. that information should 
> be going onto a problem ticket system. (Think the 'issue tracker' on the USFM 
> 3 list.  It's searchable and the status of most items is clear, and anything 
> already acted on is already on the official documentation pages.) 
> 
> That collection of pages in its current form provides little information. 
> it's not sorted by status of investigation/implementation, nor by the spec's 
> organization, but rather by the impression of the author as to it's nature.  
> It seems to be a collection of writings, some of which describe real problems 
> that have been acted on already, some that describe misspellings (but can 
> safely be ignored for module creation.), and some that fit into "wishlist" 
> meaning even if they're in the 'bug' category and actually bugs, they aren't 
> affecting what happens today. Each writing in the wiki will have to be 
> processed before I can code. I can't see any clear status marker present so I 
> can sort the already dones from the wishlist. 
> 
> THATS what I'm suggesting/working toward.  I'm encoding the entire spec for 
> storage in a source form, so that implemented bugfixes can be updated into 
> the spec. We should not have to go through megabytes of text to find 3 
> misleading characters in the spec that will break every module someone trying 
> to follow the spec will run into. I've seen enough in the wiki that I'm 
> pretty sure there's at least on issue listed there that is likely to be in 
> that class, but I'm going to have to sort through each and every sentence on 
> each and every page to find them all. 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 1:25 PM David Haslam  > wrote:
> Have you looked at our Wiki page?
> 
> OSIS 211 CR
> 
> It was even edited again today!
> 
> The Bible Technologies Group has not met for years & the original website 
> went AWOL. 
> 
> It may well be the case that CrossWire is the only remaining de facto 
> maintainer of OSIS. 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> David 
> 
> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 19:07, Michael H  > wrote:
>> 
>> I've got 40 works and growing that I've been meaning to look at creating 
>> Sword Modules. All of these are genbooks. Almost 100% currently are works by 
>> Andrew Murray (but the list is much bigger.) 
>> 
>> But, as I try to make sense of the OSIS spec, I'm facing a 2006 spec in not 
>> very well done PDF, and another one with comments, and an xslt file, and a 
>> mountain of comments on the wiki that span from outright errors, to support 
>> gaps, to wishlist. 
>> 
>> What is the status of OSIS? Is there a draft or official source, or even 
>> Crosswire source that we can at least fix typos to? I've started one, just 
>> to turn Appendix F into a real table... but as I read through the wiki, now 
>> it seems I'm going to have to process everything to be able to trust what 
>> I'm reading, and it makes sense that I should be dropping the result 
>> somewhere more official than my google drive. 
>> 
>> If we have permission to host the OSIS spec, do we have permission to bugfix 
>> it (at least the spelling gaps, and fixing the tables of information to be 
>> tabular?) 
> 
> 
> ___
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org 
> 
> 

Re: [sword-devel] Status of OSIS?

[Michael H]

David,

That page you refer to is the problem that created this email.

The page you refer to shouldn't exist like it does.. that information
should be going onto a problem ticket system. (Think the 'issue tracker' on
the USFM 3 list.  It's searchable and the status of most items is clear,
and anything already acted on is already on the official documentation
pages.)

That collection of pages in its current form provides little information.
it's not sorted by status of investigation/implementation, nor by the
spec's organization, but rather by the impression of the author as to it's
nature.  It seems to be a collection of writings, some of which describe
real problems that have been acted on already, some that describe
misspellings (but can safely be ignored for module creation.), and some
that fit into "wishlist" meaning even if they're in the 'bug' category and
actually bugs, they aren't affecting what happens today. Each writing in
the wiki will have to be processed before I can code. I can't see any clear
status marker present so I can sort the already dones from the wishlist.

THATS what I'm suggesting/working toward.  I'm encoding the entire spec for
storage in a source form, so that implemented bugfixes can be updated into
the spec. We should not have to go through megabytes of text to find 3
misleading characters in the spec that will break every module someone
trying to follow the spec will run into. I've seen enough in the wiki that
I'm pretty sure there's at least on issue listed there that is likely to be
in that class, but I'm going to have to sort through each and every
sentence on each and every page to find them all.



On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 1:25 PM David Haslam  wrote:

> Have you looked at our Wiki page?
>
> OSIS 211 CR
>
> It was even edited again today!
>
> The Bible Technologies Group has not met for years & the original website
> went AWOL.
>
> It may well be the case that CrossWire is the only remaining de facto
> maintainer of OSIS.
>
> Best regards,
>
> David
>
> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 19:07, Michael H  wrote:
>
> I've got 40 works and growing that I've been meaning to look at creating
> Sword Modules. All of these are genbooks. Almost 100% currently are works
> by Andrew Murray (but the list is much bigger.)
>
> But, as I try to make sense of the OSIS spec, I'm facing a 2006 spec in
> not very well done PDF, and another one with comments, and an xslt file,
> and a mountain of comments on the wiki that span from outright errors, to
> support gaps, to wishlist.
>
> What is the status of OSIS? Is there a draft or official source, or even
> Crosswire source that we can at least fix typos to? I've started one, just
> to turn Appendix F into a real table... but as I read through the wiki, now
> it seems I'm going to have to process everything to be able to trust what
> I'm reading, and it makes sense that I should be dropping the result
> somewhere more official than my google drive.
>
> If we have permission to host the OSIS spec, do we have permission to
> bugfix it (at least the spelling gaps, and fixing the tables of information
> to be tabular?)
>
>
>
> ___
> 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
___
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

[sword-devel] Status of OSIS?

[Michael H]

I've got 40 works and growing that I've been meaning to look at creating
Sword Modules. All of these are genbooks. Almost 100% currently are works
by Andrew Murray (but the list is much bigger.)

But, as I try to make sense of the OSIS spec, I'm facing a 2006 spec in not
very well done PDF, and another one with comments, and an xslt file, and a
mountain of comments on the wiki that span from outright errors, to support
gaps, to wishlist.

What is the status of OSIS? Is there a draft or official source, or even
Crosswire source that we can at least fix typos to? I've started one, just
to turn Appendix F into a real table... but as I read through the wiki, now
it seems I'm going to have to process everything to be able to trust what
I'm reading, and it makes sense that I should be dropping the result
somewhere more official than my google drive.

If we have permission to host the OSIS spec, do we have permission to
bugfix it (at least the spelling gaps, and fixing the tables of information
to be tabular?)
___
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