Super! When you get the mapping done, I'll be glad to incorporate it.
(If I were given a file of old=new, one per line, I could add it in
about 1/2 hour.)
While I have a few more things to do before a release, the current state
of the KJV2006, IMHO, is a significant improvement over KJV2003. Not
with regard to the effort that people put into the KJV2003. That was
excellent. But rather over the xml and OSIS problems. It is now well
formed and valid OSIS 2.1.
The last global change I have to make is the melding of the definite
article into it's following <w> element, when appropriate.
The other significant change needs to be the addition of the missing 's
in the OT.
If possible, I think that KJV2006 should be part of the starter kit for
1.5.8. (This may not happen since I have finished with the NSIS
installer and Troy is eager to create a release.)
I don't see any problem with an initial release followed, even shortly,
with a more complete release.
--DM
Chris Little wrote:
Presuming we aren't looking to put the KJV2006 out the door TODAY or
anything, I will work on a new morphology akin to the Robinson &
Packard morphologies that we can convert using a 1:1 mapping from the
OLB codes. It should be very quick to produce, I just need a little
time to get to it. :) Then we can present something a little less
opaque, that users MIGHT have a possibility of decoding without
reference to a long code list.
--Chris
Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
DM,
Chris has been about as accurate and specific on the source as I
understand the situation. The Online-Bible (OLB) software guys
created a system that extended their strongs list above the normal
range and added all these new 'strongs numbers' that map to
combinations of morphology. 'OLBStrongMorph' is about as accurate
and descriptive as we can be, I guess. I'd opt for something a
little shorter, but don't really care. I haven't come across any
consistently used name for this system of morphology. Hope that
helps a bit.
-Troy.
DM Smith wrote:
When creating a "proper" OSIS document work ids are to be declared
in the header.
I was trying to figure out one for this and if whether anything was
using it or could use it and whether it could be changed to
something more meaningful.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They are OLB verbal morphology codes, I believe. I think the "T"
stands for tense, and may be a relic of GBF encoding of this data.
We should probably create a new morphology code system and convert
these codes to that. But for the moment, preserve them at least.
They should map into the old BDB (probably derived from OLBHEB)
module that is no longer available. I suppose that is not
particularly helpful. :)
--Chris
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, DM Smith wrote:
In the KJV OT I find the following type of morphology.
Does anyone know what this indexes into?
morph="strongMorph:TH8804
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
