search

PerseusDL / canonical-latinLit

XML Canonical resources for Latin Literature
https://scaife.perseus.org
Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International
42 stars 56 forks source link

(phi0914.phi001.lat2) wrong construction of CTS URN in Scaife Viewer #314

Open nevenjovanovic opened 5 years ago

nevenjovanovic commented 5 years ago

The way CTS URNs are constructed in the Livy XML source confuses Scaife Viewer at the moment. When I go, for example, to https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi001.perseus-lat2:7.10 and then in the central pane select one of the URNs of constituent (sub)passages, it gets constructed as https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi001.perseus-lat2:1.7.10 -- it has one hierarchical unit too many, so it sends one to the Book 1, first available address. But te CTS URN on the right side is OK, and the main URN is (obviously) OK. A look at the source https://raw.githubusercontent.com/PerseusDL/canonical-latinLit/master/data/phi0914/phi001/phi0914.phi001.perseus-lat2.xml shows that there is one additional div (subtype: part) between the main one (immediately below the body element, and holding the root CTS URN) and the divs for individual books (or for the index in the snippet here):

<text>
        <body>
            <div xml:lang="lat" type="edition" n="urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi001.perseus-lat2">
                <div type="textpart" subtype="part" n="1">
                    <div type="textpart" subtype="index">

I am not sure whether this is a XML source issue or a Scaife Viewer issue (because I don't know how URNs for subreferences are constructed in the Scaife Viewer) so I will report it at both repos.

lcerrato commented 5 years ago

@nevenjovanovic I can see several errors in the markup so I think the issue in canonical-latinLit is the better place for this. There are only three div levels in the CTS refs decl and it looks like, as you note, there are four levels here part/book/chapter/section. (I also do not know what they did with the index, since that is an unreferenced section that it appears is mistagged.)