Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Search Limitations of BibleWorks?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    24

    Default Search Limitations of BibleWorks?

    Hi, I have just bought BibleWorks and am trying to use it.
    I am a professional computer scientist who studied
    natural language processing and am interested in
    Greek Bible study.

    I want to use BibleWorks to find various
    grammatical patterns of Biblical Greek.

    I would like to check the following things:

    (1) In the advanced search engine, I tried to
    remove some of connecting arrows between word boxes and merge boxes, or
    make them point to other boxes. But it seems that
    I cannot do that. I would have to remove the
    box from which the arrow comes, in order to remove the arrow. Am I wrong?

    (2) I could not create order arrow between merge boxes and word boxes, or between merge boxes and merge boxes. Am I wrong?

    Complex queries would contain various nested subqueries.
    Suppose I bring varous subqueries from disk and combine them into a complex query. In that process, I would have to create order arrows between subquery boxes, which are merge boxes. Cannot I do this?

    Sincerely yours.
    Moon Jung
    Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    24

    Default My own comments on my questions

    (1) Removing arrows between boxes: I found that disconnect
    menu in EDIT does that.

    (2) About creating ordering arrows between merge boxes or
    subquery boxes, I have no reason why they are not allowed if so.

    In the manual of Bibleworks 6, p. 135, it says:

    So the entire subquery can then be thought of
    as nothing more than a single word box using
    a reference list from disk.

    Moon Jung

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    24

    Default Re:Limitation of Search in BW

    I would like to supplement my question of the previous message.



    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    Suppose we want to search for phrases of the form NOUN PHRASE KAI NOUN PHRASE KAI NOUN PHRASE.
    Because a noun phrase can have many different forms, a noun phrase should be represented by
    a OR box in BibleWorks. So, for example we would have:

    Noun Phrase = OR (det noun, det noun adjective, det noun adjective adjectiver, det doun adjective adjective adjective ).
    Here det = determininer such as the article, demonstrative adjective, etc.

    Then the query for NOUN PHRASE KAI NOUN PHRASE KAI NOUN PHRASE would look like:

    AND( OR(.....), KAI, OR(....), KAI, OR(....) ),

    The ordering constraints for the constituents are :
    OR(...) is immediately followed by KAI, which is immediately followed by OR(...),
    which is immediately followed by KAI, which is immediately followd by OR(...).

    We may also specify agreement constraints between the constituent noun phrases.

    Now, if BibleWorks does not allow me to specify ordering constraints or agreement constraints
    between noun phrases, I have to specify them between the words of the noun phrases.

    In the case of ordering constraints, I would have to specify them between the last word
    of the first noun phrase and the first word of the second noun phrase.
    For example, I have to specify ordering constraints between each of DET NOUN,
    DET NOUN ADJECTIVE, DET NOUN ADJECTIVE ADJECTIVE, DET NOUN ADJECTIVE ADJECTIVE
    ADJECTIVE and each of DET NOUN,
    DET NOUN ADJECTIVE, DET NOUN ADJECTIVE ADJECTIVE, DET NOUN ADJECTIVE ADJECTIVE
    ADJECTIVE.

    In the case of agreement constraints, I would have to specify them between the head noun of
    each of the first noun phrases and the head noun of each of the second noun phrases.
    That is, I have to specify agreement constraints between the noun in each of DET NOUN,
    DET NOUN ADJECTIVE, DET NOUN ADJECTIVE ADJECTIVE, DET NOUN ADJECTIVE ADJECTIVE
    ADJECTIVE and the noun in each of DET NOUN,
    DET NOUN ADJECTIVE, DET NOUN ADJECTIVE ADJECTIVE, DET NOUN ADJECTIVE ADJECTIVE
    ADJECTIVE.

    Note the number and case of a noun phrase is inherited from the head noun of the noun
    phrases.

    In sum, the number of ordering constraints and agreement constraints grows exponentially
    as the alternative members of OR box increase. If we want to describe a full patterns of
    a noun phrase, I guess we would need more than 20 or 30 patterns, so the OR Merge Box
    for a noun phrase would have 20 or 30 members. Specifying ordering constraints and
    agreement constraints between each of 20 or 30 members of a OR Merge Box
    and each of 20 or or 30 members of another OR Merge Box is unmanageable.

    It is a mystery to me why BibleWorks does not allow me to specify ordering and agreement
    constraints between noun phrases. The software already introduced the notion of phrases
    by means of OR Merge Box and AND Merge Box. But it does not allow me to
    specify ordering and agreement constraints between them.

    In sum, we can interpret an ordering constraint between two noun phrases
    as the ordering constraint between the last word of the first noun phrase and the first word of
    the second noun phrase. If an OR Merge Box has multiple noun phrases, and an ordering
    constraint is given between the first OR Merge Box and the second OR Merge Box,
    the software can automatically generate the ordering constraints between each members
    of the first OR box and each member of the second OR box.

    Also we can interpret an agreement constraint between two noun phrases
    as the ordering constraint between the head noun of the first noun phrase and the head noun
    of the second noun phrase. The head noun of a noun phrase is well defined.
    In general, the head word of a phrase, e.g. noun phrase, verb phrase, adjectival phrase,
    prepositional phrase, is well defined.
    Moon Jung
    Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
    Last edited by moonryul; 12-30-2004 at 06:48 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    344

    Default

    Moon Jung,

    You can order phrases, but they have to be within the same query (or subquery). So there is never any need to assign ordering to a merge box. See the attached ASE query example, which finds all occurrences of phrase1 where it is followed by either phrase2 or phrase3.

    If you can give me a specific phrase for which you are searching I can construct the query for you.


    I hope this helps.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by Charlie; 12-27-2004 at 05:41 PM.
    Charlie Gibson
    BibleWorks Technical Support
    Important Note: This forum is not the appropriate method for contacting BibleWorks staff.

    Please use the following links if you need a response from the BibleWorks staff:
    Technical Support: Click here
    Ideas: Click here

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    24

    Default RE: odering constraints between phrases

    Dear Charlie,

    I tested your example query. That query was also the one
    I tried. But what I want is more than that.

    Let me rephrase my previous post here:

    Suppose we want to search for phrases of the form NOUN PHRASE NOUN PHRASE.

    Suppose that a noun phrase can be expressed in 10 different ways. ( You would agree that in fact, a noun
    phrase can be expressed in more than 10 ways, because
    a noun phrase followed by one adjective is also a noun phrase, and a noun phrase followed by two adjectives
    is also a noun phrase. )

    Now the first noun phrase can be expressed by having an OR merge box over 10 different phrases.
    The second noun phrase can also be expressed in 10
    different ways. To express it, we need the second OR merge box.

    Suppose that we want to say that the first noun phrase should be immediately followed by the second noun phrase. It can be done by a single ordering constraint
    between the two OR merge boxes.

    If I do as you suggested, then I have to say 10 times
    10 ordering constraints between the last word
    of each noun phrase under the first OR merge box,
    and the first word of each noun phrase under the second OR merge box. How could I specify 10 * 10 ordering
    constraints? It is simply infeasible.

    Moon Jung
    Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    206

    Default

    Hello Moon Jung-

    To do what you are describing would require a syntactically tagged database that tags noun phrases, verb phrases, etc. Such a database is not (yet) in BibleWorks.

    Michael

  7. #7

    Question Syntactically tagged databases

    Hi Michael
    Is a such a tagged database in any other program?
    David McKay
    www.davidmckay.info

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    24

    Default Re: ordering constraints between Merge boxes

    Michael,

    grammatical tagging would require a systematic
    revision of the software architecture. So, you are right.
    But for now, I am asking for a slight change of the user
    interface of the search engine.

    The example query provided by Charlie does specify
    an ordering constraint between phrases. But the
    method is applicable only when a query is very simple.
    Let me explain.

    Charlie's subquery looks like:

    AND( AND( *@vi*, *@nn*),
    OR( AND(*@vi*, *@n*), AND(*@vi*, *@n*) )
    ).

    Here there are three phrases:
    (1) AND( *@vi*, *@nn*)
    (2) AND(*@vi*, *@n*)
    (3) AND(*@vi*, *@n*)

    The ordering constraint of this query is this:
    (1) is immediately followed by either (2) or (3).

    But the Bibleworks does not allow me
    to specify this constraint directly. It only
    allows me to specify ordering constraints between
    word boxes. So, Charlie's subquery has
    the "exactly 0" between the last word of the
    phrase (1) and the first word of the phrase (2),
    and the "exactly 0" between the last word of
    the phrase (1) and the first word of the phrase (3).

    In simple queries like Charlie's, I can specify
    ordering constraints between phrases this way.
    But suppose I want to specify general queries like:

    AND( OR( AND(1W1a, 1W1b), ..., AND(1Wna, 1Wnb) ),
    OR( AND(2W1a, 2W1b),..., AND(2Wma, 2Wmb) )
    )

    Suppose that the query specifies the first phrase
    OR( AND(1W1a, 1W1b), ..., AND(1Wna, 1Wnb) )
    to be immediately followed by the second phrase
    OR( AND(2W1a, 2W1b),..., AND(2Wma, 2Wmb).
    The first phrase has n alternatives, while the second
    m alternatives. If we have an ordering constraint
    between merge boxes, the ordering constraint
    can be specified by a single "exactly 0" between
    the first OR box and the second OR box.

    In the current user interface, I have to specify
    n times m constraints of "exactly 0", between
    1Wkb and 2Wla, where k=1,n and l=1,m.

    What I would like to ask is simple:

    (i) Do not have the user specify n * m constraints of
    "exactly 0".
    (ii) Have the user specify a single constraint
    "exactly 0" between two OR boxes.
    (ii) Let the software automatically generate
    the n * m constraints which the current software requires.

    It will save a lot of pains from the user. It will also make
    generic queries feasible.

    You might question the usefulness of such a query. Let me
    give an example for such a query, which I tried to build
    recently. This experience prompted me to post this question.

    I wanted to find male noun phrase KAI female noun phrase
    which are referred to by masculine pronouns or masculine
    relative pronouns. Because noun phrases can be expressed
    in many different ways, noun phrase KAI noun phrase
    would look like:

    AND( OR( AND(1W1a, 1W1b), ..., AND(1Wna, 1Wnb) ),
    KAI,
    OR( AND(2W1a, 2W1b),..., AND(2Wma, 2Wmb) )
    )

    I can think of more than dozen ways of experssing noun
    phrases in Greek.

    Again, the change I want is very simple. I hope the next
    update will include this change. It will take the following steps:

    (1) Allow the user to specify an ordering constraint betwen
    OR or ANd Merge boxes.
    (2) Change an ordering constraint between two AND boxes
    to an ordering constraint between the last daughter
    of the first AND box and the first daughter of the second
    AND box, until the daughters are lexical word boxes.
    (3) Change an ordering constraint between two OR boxes
    to a number of constraints between each daughter
    of the first OR box and each daughter of the second OR box.

    We do not need to change the search engine itself at all.

    Sincerely yours
    Moon Jung
    Associate Professor
    Dept of Media Technology
    Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
    Last edited by moonryul; 12-30-2004 at 06:51 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    206

    Default

    Hello Moon Jung,

    I will take your carefully described request and put in on our list of possible changes. I do see the merit to your idea, 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. 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. 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. 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.

    I put your request on my list of requested features and see what we can do with it. As you would expect, we are constantly planning and developing new features. Your request may be fulfilled in coming related new features.

    Michael

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    24

    Default Re: ordering constraints between Merge boxes

    [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
    Last edited by moonryul; 12-30-2004 at 07:04 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •