I ask for advice, related to this interesting thread from 2013. The last 
posts propose to use 'anonymous block' <ab> for Bible verses, e.g.:

    <ab type="verse" n="3">And God said, Let there be light: and there 
was light.</ab> <!-- ... -->

The other type of solution that appears in some biblical projects relies 
on <milestone>, e.g.:

    <milestone unit="verse" n="3"/>And God said, Let there be light: and 
there was light. <!-- ... -->

The first approach is based on "container-elements", the second on 
"delimiters". As my colleagues start to prepare an edition of the oldest 
Slovenian Bible in TEI, we wish to ask what are the possible 
(dis)advantages of the two approaches, esp. from the point of view of
1 - possible overlapping hierarchies, and
2 - adding other translations as parallel apparatus.

<milestone>Plans are established by seeking advice :) Thank you,


Dne 08. 11. 2013 ob 13:19 je Lou Burnard zapisal(a):
> +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

Matija Ogrin, dr.
Neznani rokopisi slovenskega slovstva 17. in 18. stoletja (NRSS)
InĘtitut za slovensko literaturo in literarne vede