PDA

View Full Version : RE: morpho



moonryul
01-09-2005, 09:28 PM
[Michael]
I wiill take your carefully described request and put in on our list of possible changes. I do see the merit to your idea,
=> Thanks.

but I should warn you that it would not be simple to fully implement. The ASE code is well-designed, but as I am sure you are aware, in any large piece of complex software, a seemingly small change can have large ramifications.
=> Yes, in general.
But not, in this particular case.

As one small example, I can think of several practical situations where you would not want this feature unless there were further flags that could be used to de-activate the feature for given phrases under a merge box. These small changes start to add up.
=> See below.

As another small example, to be fully general, the program would need to properly deal with multiple ordering links between multiple pairs of merge boxes.
=> Yes, but it is trivial. See my explanation below.

A complex set of rules would then have to be implemented and enforced. All of this can be done, but I hope you can see that it is not a trivial change.

=> All we need is translation rules (A) and (B).

Rule (A):
(1) an ordering constraint O between two OR merge boxes, OR(p1, p2, ....pn) and OR(q1, q2, ... qm),

is equivalent to:

(1)':
O between p1 and q1, between p1 and q2, ...., between
p1 and qm,

O between p2 and q1, between p2 and q2, ...., between
p2 and qm,

...

O between pn and q1, between pn and q2, ...., between
pn and qm,

Right? Rather than having the user specify (1)', let us
have them specify (1) and let the system translate it
into (1)'. This translation rule is obvious.
Of course, pi and qi are either Merge boxes or word boxes.
If they are word boxes, the translation is completed.
If they are OR Merge boxes, then translation rule (A) is
applied again. If they are AND Merge boxes, rule (B) is
applied again.

Rule (B):

(2) an ordering constraint O between two AND merge
boxes, AND(p1,p2,...,pn) and AND(q1,q2,...,qm)
is equivalent to

(2)':

O between the last daughter of the first AND box, pn,
and the first daughter of the second AND box, q1.

Here I assume that pn is the last word
of the first AND box, and q1 is the first word
of the second AND box. See (C) below, for this.

Of course, pn and q1 are either Merge boxes or Word boxes. If they are Word boxes, the translation is completed. If they are OR merge boxes, translation rule (A) is applied again. If they are AND merge boxes,
translation rule (B) is applied again.

SO, given an ordering constraint between OR boxes or
AND boxes, it can be translated into equivalent ordering
constraints between their daughters recursively down
the query tree.
------------------------------------------------------------

Michael, you said:

you would not want this feature unless there were further flags that could be used to de-activate the feature for given phrases under a merge box.

=> I do not understand it. Perhaps you misunderstood the
translation rule of the ordering constraints, which I
explained above in a more algorithmic manner.
Because an ordering constraint between Merge boxes is a
simpler and equivalent way of specifying the same
constraints repeatedly between the daughter boxes
of the Merge boxes, there is no "de-activation" here.

Am I missing something?


(C) There is another concern for ordering constraints
which is related to the transation rule I am talking about,
but which is also worthy to talk about in itself.

In the manual, I read that AND merge box, AND(p1,p2,p3), does not say anything about ordering
between p1, p2, and p3. Without any further
ordering constraints on them, the search engine
finds 6 permutations of p1, p2, p3 from individual
verses. It should be true even when pi's are AND or
OR Merge boxes. Right? AND(AND(p1,p2), AND(q1,q2))
will be interpreted as saying: find permutations of
p1,p2, q1, q2 from verses. I think it is very confusing.

I think AND(p1,p2,p3), without further ordering
constraints, should be interpreted as saying:
Find a verse in which p1, p2, p3 occur in that order.
That is, the relative order of p1, p2, p3 are determined,
only the distances between them are not given.


If I want to find some permutations of p1, p2, p3, say
p2, p1, p3 and p1, p3, p2, then I will say that by

creating OR merge box

OR( AND(p1,p2,p3), AND(p2,p1,p3), AND(p1, p3, p2) ).

This rule has several advantages.

(1) Under this rule, it is possible to translate
an ordering constraint between AND(p1,p2,p3) and
AND(q1, q2, q3) into
the same ordering constraint between
p3 and q1, when there are no further ordering
constraints among p1, p2, p3 and among q1, q2, q3.

(2) It can liberate the user from the burden to specify
distances among p1, p2, p3, e.g. "at most 10" etc,
even when the user is NOT concerned with them.
I find this burden quite dissatisfying.
In fact, this is another instance where the system forces
the user to specify too much details which the system
can take care of by itself.


(3) The user need not specify a backward ordering
arrow, say from p3 to p1, for AND box AND(p1,p2,p3).
Such a user interface is too confusing and complicated.
Again, when there is need for such an ordering constraint,
then I can introduce another AND box and an OR box,
so that the new and the old AND boxes are daughters
of the OR box. No backward arrows! Query language
is also a language. It should be easy to interpret, easy
to modify. I doubt very much that the user will ever use
backward ordering arrows. See (4) for another potential waste of this feature.


(4) The search engine does not have to waste its time
finding all permutations of p1, p2, p3 and then throwing
away most of them because most of them do not satisfy
the specified ordering constraints. I think this can become critical when a query becomes general and complex.


Are there any good arguments for interpreting
AND(p1, p2, p3) as saying all permutations of p1, p2, p3?


------------------------------
Moon Jung
Associate Professor
Dept of Media Tech
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea