Hi Kirk, [cross-posting: this is from a thread about exact morphological searches with Kirk Lowery]
> >>> We'd also have to add another (redundant) element <seg ... > >>> x-wlc-morphstring="[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> to be able to perform searches > >>> using the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" syntax. > >> > >> I'm having trouble visualizing why this is so, but I trust you that it > >> *is* so! :-) > > > > The reason is as simple as stupid. Searching works verse-based, not > > word-based in Sword/BibleTime atm. So when I search for "lemma:somelemma > > and morph:somemorph" to find "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", I might get verses > > that contain one word with lemma=somelemma and another one with > > morph=somemorph. That's why, at least for now, we do need the [EMAIL > > PROTECTED] > > syntax somewhere. Unless a better option comes up, of course. > > Ah! Now I understand. Okay, this brings up one of my favorite gripes > about Bible software in general, including Sword: granularity of > searching. All Bible software has its primary segmentation to be the > "verse." Yet most users, even the most unsophisticated, look to the > sentence or more likely the word level. Also, with lemma and parsing > strings, there are likely to be many "false positives" because there are > many morphemes with the same or similar strings in the same verse. > > If Sword would reset the granularity of text segmentation to the word, > it would trump every other Bible software package out there! > > Okay, I'll stop. :-) > > > The search engine adds a field for everything, referring to a particular > > verse. So the verse's text is one field, all of the individual morph, > > lemma, footnote etc. strings are added as other distinct fields. So when > > I search for "lemma:somelemma and morph:somemorph", the index is searched > > for verses that have one matching lemma field and one matching morph > > field. That's why the error mentioned above would disturb the user. > > > > Need to think more about it, perhaps there can be a way around this. > > How about overlapping indexes? One at the verse-level, one for each > word- and one for each morpheme? It might take some reworking of the > search engine, but maybe not so much? Then the user could choose when > index he wants to search? Thant's exactly what I thought. Let's first do the module right, and then think about integrating the word-level index into BibleTime and, if possible, Sword later. That is why I'm CC'ing to Troy and other lists as well. God bless, Martin
pgp3V3bpPViVA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
