Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Check we have a plan for all current PT project types #93

Open
mvahowe opened this issue Nov 20, 2019 · 15 comments
Open

Check we have a plan for all current PT project types #93

mvahowe opened this issue Nov 20, 2019 · 15 comments
Labels
Defining Feature or Fix We have a rough idea that needs refining before implementation Flavor Discussion about a single new or existing flavor Talk About This! Consider putting this issue on the agenda for an SB meeting

Comments

@mvahowe
Copy link
Contributor

mvahowe commented Nov 20, 2019

I discovered in a call with @jonathanrobie that PT has project types that are not represented in DBL. We need to ensure that SB can handle all those project types (or come up with a valid reason for not handling specific project types.) The fix may be as simple as adding to the existing flavorType enums, or may require new flavors.

@jonathanrobie
Copy link
Collaborator

jonathanrobie commented Nov 20, 2019 via email

@FoolRunning
Copy link
Collaborator

@jonathanrobie, I do not see your screenshot.

@jonathanrobie
Copy link
Collaborator

Take two ...

image

@mvahowe
Copy link
Contributor Author

mvahowe commented Feb 20, 2020

I don't really see this going anywhere unless or until the PT team makes some concrete proposals for SB flavors to represent some of these project types. @jonathanrobie @FoolRunning Realistically, for how many of the above cases is this likely to happen in, say, the next 6 months? (We still haven't done this work for a basic text translation, see #52.)

@mvahowe mvahowe added the Defining Feature or Fix We have a rough idea that needs refining before implementation label Feb 20, 2020
@jag3773 jag3773 added the Flavor Discussion about a single new or existing flavor label Feb 20, 2020
@FoolRunning
Copy link
Collaborator

Standard Translation, Daughter Translation, and Auxiliary are all basically the same (a set of scripture books). The difference is how they relate to other projects. I think new flavorTypes would be fine for those if we want them as SBs.

Back Translation and Transliteration (Manual) are basically the same as a normal translation, but include a status on whether the base translation was changed since the BT/transliteration was accepted. I'm not sure we want/need that status information in SB, but either way they could probably also just be flavorTypes.

Transliteration (using Encoding Converter) is basically a normal project that gets it's data automatically through a conversion from another project. Assuming we want this in SB, I think it could also be a flavorType.

Study Bible and Study Bible Additions are normal translations containing additional study-Bible content (e.g. sidebars, longer introductions, etc.). The difference between them is that Study Bible Additions uses standoff markup for the added content where Study Bible has it directly included in the USFM text. We have basically deprecated Study Bible projects in favor of the Additions, so I don't think there's any reason to support the deprecated version in SB. Because of it's standoff markup, this might need to be a new type of SB.

Consultant Notes are basically a set of project notes designed to be shared between projects. I don't think we've even talked about what to do with project notes so I'm not sure we want this included in a SB. I think since this is more akin to standoff markup it might need to be a new type of SB.

@rdb
Copy link
Collaborator

rdb commented Feb 21, 2020

As I understand it, some of these project types actually share the same Registry metadata object as the main project they are related to. Which ones does this apply to?

If we want to define these as separate project types in SB, we should consider how this affects the metadata flow from the Registry, if these project types continue to share the same Registry project.

@FoolRunning
Copy link
Collaborator

As I understand it, some of these project types actually share the same Registry metadata object as the main project they are related to. Which ones does this apply to?

They share licenses, but they don't share much metadata. The only metadata sharing I can think of is that derived translations (everything but Standard and Consultant Notes) must use the same versification as it's base project.

@mvahowe
Copy link
Contributor Author

mvahowe commented Mar 4, 2020

@FoolRunning The list above is really helpful. The things you describe as "stand off" sound a lot like what I imagined putting in the parascriptural flavorType. eg stand-off study Bible content isn't Scripture, but tracks with Scripture. Could you give us an example of a file with stand-off content?

@FoolRunning
Copy link
Collaborator

FoolRunning commented Mar 4, 2020

Here is an Additions file: StudyBibleAdditions_xml.txt (16MB)
If we include this in SB, I'm not sure we want to use the same file format. It includes a lot of context information so it can re-hook up if the base text changes. Something simpler might be better for SB.

@mvahowe
Copy link
Contributor Author

mvahowe commented Mar 4, 2020

Thanks. At a quick glance that looks like a great candidate for a parascriptural flavorType. (Some of it would obviously need some burritoification, eg I don't think we'd want to refer to books by their number.)

@rdb
Copy link
Collaborator

rdb commented Mar 4, 2020

They share licenses, but they don't share much metadata. The only metadata sharing I can think of is that derived translations (everything but Standard and Consultant Notes) must use the same versification as it's base project.

@FoolRunning I think what I'm asking is which project types currently are allowed/required to be registered independently on the PT Registry.

@FoolRunning
Copy link
Collaborator

FoolRunning commented Mar 4, 2020

@rdb, Ah. Standard, Daughter, Study Bible and Study Bible Additions are required to have their own registrations.

Back Translation, Transliteration (Manual), and Transliteration (using Encoding Converter) can optionally have them.

@ericpyle
Copy link

@FoolRunning DBL also currently supports GlobalAnthropologyNotes which is partially modeled after GlobalConsultantNotes project types.

Standard Translation, Daughter Translation, and Auxiliary are all basically the same (a set of scripture books). The difference is how they relate to other projects. I think new flavorTypes would be fine for those if we want them as SBs.

Back Translation and Transliteration (Manual) are basically the same as a normal translation, but include a status on whether the base translation was changed since the BT/transliteration was accepted. I'm not sure we want/need that status information in SB, but either way they could probably also just be flavorTypes.

Transliteration (using Encoding Converter) is basically a normal project that gets it's data automatically through a conversion from another project. Assuming we want this in SB, I think it could also be a flavorType.

Study Bible and Study Bible Additions are normal translations containing additional study-Bible content (e.g. sidebars, longer introductions, etc.). The difference between them is that Study Bible Additions uses standoff markup for the added content where Study Bible has it directly included in the USFM text. We have basically deprecated Study Bible projects in favor of the Additions, so I don't think there's any reason to support the deprecated version in SB. Because of it's standoff markup, this might need to be a new type of SB.

Consultant Notes are basically a set of project notes designed to be shared between projects. I don't think we've even talked about what to do with project notes so I'm not sure we want this included in a SB. I think since this is more akin to standoff markup it might need to be a new type of SB.

@jag3773
Copy link
Collaborator

jag3773 commented Nov 5, 2020

Related to #145

@jag3773 jag3773 added the Talk About This! Consider putting this issue on the agenda for an SB meeting label Nov 5, 2020
@jonathanrobie
Copy link
Collaborator

Here are the definitions of project types in Paratext Help.

Screen Shot 2021-02-25 at 16 51 05

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Defining Feature or Fix We have a rough idea that needs refining before implementation Flavor Discussion about a single new or existing flavor Talk About This! Consider putting this issue on the agenda for an SB meeting
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants