Chris Little wrote:
There are many file formats for sword, each with their own drivers to handle them. It depends how you implement the solution, the real problem here is a paradigm shift. Right now, a VerseKey is an atomomous element containing the KJV verse number scheme. We have plans to change this, but it requires that VerseKey objects be obtained from, and tied to, a specific module.On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Patrick Narkinsky wrote:I was actually about this problem, a little bit last night. It seems to me that would be needed would be multiple, ordered indexes of the books. So, you would have the "book" index, which would contain multiple "chapters" indexes, then the "verses" indexes. They could then point inside whatever data structure you chose to hold the actual data. So, you could increment by verse, chapter, or book and get sensible results.
Once upon a time (long before I joined), this was how sword worked.
I suppose this could probably be munged into an SWKey (and maybe even SWVersekey) derived class. The downside is that, from what little I understand about sword internals, it would require extensions to the file format, right?
A little bit, but, again, it's returning to an old format. Essentially we would map to files that are at the moment held in static arrays.Excactly. When the implementation is done the 'right way', it will include support for linking Bibles together with a common key (which is currently supported,as all Bibles and commentaries currently use the same versification scheme), which will require a translation mechanism between the versification schemes.
This still doesn't deal with mapping between versifications at all.
I disagree with Chris on this one, but not adamantly. Recent thoughts on the matter:I would be willing to put some time in this if its doable (since I am
specializing in second temple Judaism, the apocrypha are quite important
documents for me.)
Regarding doing Apocrypha as general books... I would personally really rather that people not do this.
It's a pain to manage. It's doing things the wrong way because they can't yet be done the right way. It's handling the same thing using multiple paradigms. And it is very unlikely that people would do apocrypha from Bibles other than their favorite, making our collection very lopsided. And it doesn't help with making Bibles with Apocrypha (once that's possible) any easier since we already have all the data for them.
o In my ignorance, I used to think the Bibletime multilevel key mechanism for general books was silly. In reality, it is very useful for books versified in the same 'theme' as the Bible. It makes navigating identical between Bibles and these other types of book. With a mechanism like this, navigating extra-Biblical resources will be just like navigating Bibles.
o _Chris_ may have 'all the data' for these resources somewhere, but if they were genbooks in sword, _I_ could *automate* one conversion process for all of these (and I like having things in my power, if possible:) ).
o They would be working and useful, until such a time as a new mechanism is in place.
o We have someone willing to do the work and spreading the work load around is the best ammenity. Also will give the opportunity to learn how to make general books, so Patrick can help with other things in the future. ;)
-Troy
