The problem in using Bosak’s model is partially because of the weight and redundancy of XML and partially because of JSON’s more restricted use of object names. This is to say that the name <Line> that Bosak uses for all of speech lines in an array is restricted to a single use of “Line”: in JSON. In addition, I wanted to create a format that incorporated a running line number system such that a line number is part of the data format but not part of the data itself, i.e. mark a line as “line one” without inserting it into the line proper. Bosak’s format enables counting lines but would require processing the entire document every time instead of it being immediately accessible. These requirements resulted in me setting up arrays of nested arrays where each name could be unique to its array but able to be repeated in other arrays. For example, the author contains the list of works, each play in that list has a selection of acts, and inside each act are scenes. But the larger question resides in whether or not a line is inherent to the character speaking it or if a line encapsulates the speaker.
A diagram of this situation is below.
My first intuition was that the character possessed their lines since that is how it is structured in print editions. The problem with this is that JSON requires a single variable declaration per array so that the array “Scene One” cannot contain more than one instance of “King” or “Queen”, etc. This means that the scene’s array would only a list of characters which speak in it. Each character then has an array of lines numbered as they appear in the scene. For me, this format drastically emphasizes a false dichotomy between how I would proceed as a reader and how I would proceed as a programmer. It also revoked the idea of an easier parsing by humans. In contrast to this, Witmore and Hope  removed speech prefixes in their digital study of Shakespeare’s works thereby suggesting that characters are not fundamental to the text of the play. This is intriguing since it seems counterintuitive to my personal experience stemming from printed matter. Yet I feel like this makes sense at the same time. Ordering the data like this would result in an easier recognition of variants, such as the differences between quartos, folios, or editions that might also be similarly marked up.
Still, I feel that the idea of possession and attribution in texts is not truly addressed by determining a data format but rather something to be thought on further.
3. Hope, Jonathon and Michael Witmore. “The Hundredth Psalm to the Tune of ‘Green Sleeves’: Digital Approaches to Shakespeare’s Language of Genre.”Shakespeare Quarterly 61 (2010): Number 3. pp. 357.\
******* Revised JSON Format Following the Comments Below *******