- nothing happens, and the user has to manually look up the reference for themselves
- you (since I do not yet) subscribe to a clever plugin that converts you reference into a link to an online Bible that the plugin writer fancies (often the ESV) which the reader is stuck with even if they hate the XYV and would prefer the original Aramaic (it was that part of Daniel you cited wasn't it?)
- they are "simple" so even dumboes like you and I can use them, they are not just for technogods
- they are "conventions" so we can choose whether to use them or not, but if we do good things happen, like when we follow the conventions of the form of literature we are writing
- they "embed semantics" - that means that they "know" what you mean, and other services can understand that your reference to Amos 5:13 is just that, a reference to a Bible verse or passage
- this enables "decentralised development" - which means that today, tomorrow or in two years time, Jo or Joe can write a cool tool which sings the Bible in properly cantored Hebrew, or presents a PDF of the beautifully illuminated page from the Book of Kells, or whatever... and you can use it, or your user can use it - even if you have never heard of the tool.
Here are the three posts so far that discuss the proposal. Do take a look. Forget yawning at the techno-speak, but think about how this will work from a user's point of view. And encourage this development, so it does go on to become a convention. Because that is what is needed for it to work.
Sean's "modest proposal":
and OpenBible.info suggests some neater simplifications:
Sean responds and agrees:
WARNING: the post above was written by a technical ignoramus, but it will be corrected and updated as soon as anyone with greater knowledge explains the need!
Labels: bible, bible.software, blog, open.biblical.studies
¶ 9:14 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
Just how lazy have folk become that they are so troubled at having to actually look up a verse that they have to devise a way not to?
What will we ever do if electicity is lost.
By 
Jim, at
May 28, 2007 10:29 AM
I think, Jim, that the rot really started when people began to use Papyrus scrolls just because they were easier to carry than those authoritative stone (or aesthetic clay) tablets, but really set in hard when those Christians started to use codex form "books" just because they made documents more portable and gave random access. The discipline of unrolling the scroll to a reference is so holy and scholarly...
By 
Tim, at
May 28, 2007 10:49 AM
Hello Tim!
Well first it's nice to see that I'm not the only one gifted with a hint of sarcasm. ;-)
Personally I think everyone ought to have to cart around a big clay tablet. It would cut down on those crazy preachers flinging their bible back and forth from hand to hand, rolling the cover back like some sort of snail.
By Jim, at
May 28, 2007 11:31 AM
Oh, but a decent lump of clay is so satisfying to toss firmly from hand to hand to demonstrate one's mastery at preaching, I can't wait till I can authoritatively toss a proper stone tablet. The MusculizerKingPro that I'm buying from the TV ad should help a lot.
By Tim, at
May 28, 2007 11:45 AM
In the South they have a saying which I think fits here...
'yu aint right'
;-)
By Jim, at
May 28, 2007 12:41 PM
Jim: I don't want to squelch the fun, but not having to look up verses isn't the point at all. If the references are identified, it means the search engines can index content that way. That will let you more effectively search for discussions about passages you're interested in, without having to guess which book name abbreviation or format somebody used. For that matter, if you're interested in Amos 5:13, you might want to be able to search for references to Amos 5 (because a discussion of verse 12 or 14 might be relevant to you).
By Sean, at
May 28, 2007 1:35 PM
Thanks, Sean. It was fun while it lasted, but a genuine thanks for the reminder, I had overlooked the possibilities with search engines, if this got to be an established convention.
By Tim, at
May 28, 2007 1:57 PM
