We use <p> and <lg> : <p> for the prose portions of the Bible, or
those that the source edition has chosen to render as
<lg> for the version portions (Psalms, some bit of the prophets), or
which the editor has chosen to render as verse. This is because nearly
all of the translations we deal with (Latin, English, French, or Welsh)
happen to be formatted in the one-paragraph-per-verse manner
(or occasionally in the one-stanza-per-verse manner).
Where the formatting and the chapter-and-verse hierarchy are
not in alignment, e.g. in metrical
psalters or in modern 'paragraph'-style Bibles in which the verse
numbers are incidental to the paragraphing, we tend to record the
visible structure (metrical lines and stanzas in the metrical psalter;
prose paragraphs in the prose translations) as primary, and record
the 'verse' numbers in milestones <milestone n="23" unit="verse"/>.
We adopted this method before <ab> was available. We would probably
use ab for most Bible verses now. But even
now, I do not believe that there is a single one-size-fits-all solution.
Since editions and translations of the Bible will often have other
structures (such as genuine paragraphs and genuine lines of verse)
that may or may not align with the chapter-and-verse structure,
and may represent those more or less overtly.
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013, at 7:19, Lou Burnard wrote:
> +1 from me. In fact, this use (and that of the First Folio) were the
> main motivations for adding <ab> to the TEI!
> On 08/11/13 12:08, James Cummings wrote:
> > I'd definitely agree with Gabby (and Piotr) here. The canonical use
> > for <ab> is in my mind bible verses. They are not metrical lines, they
> > are not paragraphs. An 'anonymous block' is a good way to mark them.
> > -James
> > On 08/11/13 11:55, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
> >> I think Piotr early in the last thread suggested `<ab>`, which
> >> doesn't have the semantic baggage of `<p>`. I use it for almost
> >> all groupings of sub-div-level text.
> >> On 2013-11-08 11:53, Christian Chiarcos wrote:
> >>> Yet another (and probably stupid) question:
> >>> what would be the most appropriate markup up an original Bible
> >>> verse:
> >>> - <l>: In fact, it can be said to be a line of verse, but this
> >>> is not
> >>> verse in the poetic sense (as apparently presupposed in TEI).
> >>> In poetic
> >>> renderings of the bible, the two definitions of verse would clash.
> >>> - <p>: In modern editions, Bible verses are often written within a
> >>> single paragraph, but this is not systematically the case.
> >>> - <seg type="verse">: This was used in the old CES scheme. No
> >>> longer
> >>> possible in TEI because <seg> is not allowed as a child of <div>
> >>> anymore, and marking chapter-level divs as <p> would be even more
> >>> unjustified than using <p> for verses.
> >>> - <span type="verse">: In a way it can be said that assigning a
> >>> verse id
> >>> "associates an interpretative annotation directly with a span
> >>> of text"
> >>> but I'm a little bit in doubt whether this really qualifies as an
> >>> "interpretative annotation".
> >>> Both <l> and <p> are problematic, because the units under
> >>> consideration
> >>> are not directly grounded in text structure but in traditional
> >>> verse
> >>> numbering (regardless of how manifested in the respective
> >>> edition).
> >>> Right now, I'm inclined to work with span, because it would be an
> >>> isomorphic mapping from the old CES specs, but I might have
> >>> overlooked
> >>> some more suitable alternative.
> >>> Any ideas?
> >>> Christian
Paul Schaffner Digital Library Production Service
[log in to unmask] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/