Gloss upon gloss

[jonathanrobie]

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:

<Node xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" Cat="noun" morphId="130020160092" Unicode="עֲשָׂה־אֵ֖ל" nodeId="1300201600920010" StrongNumberX="6214" Greek="ασαηλ">
  <c cherith-english="Asahel" cherith-chinese="亚撒黑" marble-sense="עֲשָׂהאֵל:003001007:Names of People:Asahel|שָׁלֹשׁ:002001001042:Quantity;002001003009:Frequency:three">
    <m word="1CH 2:16!9" n="130020160092" morph="Np" lang="H" lemma="6214+" after="־" pos="noun" type="proper">עֲשָׂה</m>
    <m word="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?

[jonathanrobie]

One traditional answer to this would be to use namespaces, e.g.

<c c:english="Asahel"  c:mandarin="亚撒黑" sil:english="Asahel" />

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.

[jonathanrobie]

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:

<c english="Asahel"  mandarin="亚撒黑" sil="Asahel" sdbh="....."/>

[jonathanrobie]

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="...."?