Closed jag3773 closed 3 years ago
Does this mean shipping a .vrs
file inside each SB that references to a versification system rather than just referring to it by name?
Most projects have customized their versification in some way so it makes sense that they should be included with the project.
Ideally, the current project's versification could be provided as a delta against a known "standard" versification.
I think @jonathanrobie and versification group was going to define how this happens (maybe they have already?).
For non-Scripture types, I think we just need to reference the versification scheme being used. For example, a set of translation notes shouldn't be able to customize a versification scheme, but it may be keyed to a BCV scheme and the tool just needs to know which one that is.
For example, a set of translation notes shouldn't be able to customize a versification scheme, but it may be keyed to a BCV scheme and the tool just needs to know which one that is.
But that versification scheme would probably be a customized version belonging to a project, would it not? If we just reference it "by name", then that means we need to have a name (or some designation) for every customized versification that exists.
To emulate the status quo, I think we have two reasonable options.
In practice, many projects use the versification of an existing gateway language translation, which suggests we might also want to be able to specify diffs from:
I would suggest that we support all three.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 11:55 AM Tim Steenwyk notifications@github.com wrote:
For example, a set of translation notes shouldn't be able to customize a versification scheme, but it may be keyed to a BCV scheme and the tool just needs to know which one that is.
But that versification scheme would probably be a customized version belonging to a project, would it not? If we just reference it "by name", then that means we need to have a name (or some designation) for every customized versification that exists.
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/bible-technology/scripture-burrito/issues/212#issuecomment-743307525, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AANPTPLZFLMQ3B5H3ZHWP7DSUJFHNANCNFSM4QGG2IBA .
@jtauber to prep and then talk to @jonathanrobie about possible work needed in versification group.
See #243 for discussion for @jonathanrobie to take to versification group.
As discussed last week and in #243, all deltas will be expressed against org and no other versification system. They may have originally been expressed as delta to some other versification system but, for the purposes of generating a burrito, the delta against org is calculated and that is all that can be in a burrito.
Yes, I agree.
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 8:25 AM James Tauber notifications@github.com wrote:
As discussed last week and in #243 https://github.com/bible-technology/scripture-burrito/discussions/243, all deltas will be expressed against org and no other versification system. They may have originally been expressed as delta to some other versification system but, for the purposes of generating a burrito, the delta against org is calculated and that is all that can be in a burrito.
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/bible-technology/scripture-burrito/issues/212#issuecomment-777454971, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AANPTPPL362GOD7XXVAZSI3S6PLFVANCNFSM4QGG2IBA .
I think this is now going to be done as a new role for an ingredient which is a delta from the org
versification to the versification used in the burrito. In which case I think #248 will cover it and this can be closed. But is there anything else that needs to be done? Is a role on an ingredient sufficient?
as now covered by #248, this can be closed.
Currently, versification is a standalone flavor but it should be built into at least the following flavortypes: