I'm trying to duplicate some results and want to search specifically on headwords. Any way to do this?
Not that I know of, but I'd think that headwords should have some special markup that would make this possible. But you can get in the ballpark using a field search. In most resources, you probably want the "Heading Text" field. You can isolate your search to that field by using the dropdown selector or just search all text for heading:term.
We've talked about adding the facet filter box from Bible Browser into the contents pane, which would allow you to filter down and find a headword or TOC heading.
I'll ask around to see if there's a way to do this I'm not thinking of.
We've talked about adding the facet filter box from Bible Browser
Ooh! then can you please see this post where I asked for that type of capability? ...
https://community.logos.com/forums/p/130571/848954.aspx#848954
We've talked about adding the facet filter box from Bible Browser Ooh! then can you please see this post where I asked for that type of capability? ... https://community.logos.com/forums/p/130571/848954.aspx#848954
We saw that and discussed it briefly. Thanks for the suggestion.
[Y]
I'd think that headwords should have some special markup that would make this possible. But you can get in the ballpark using a field search. In most resources, you probably want the "Heading Text" field.
Headwords are not necessarily visible i.e. manuscript text, but often can be found via "Large Text" as well as "Heading Text".
e.g. an article heading "Biblical Salvation" could be associated with headwords "Salvation", "Redemption".
The lookup command will find headwords but you can't restrict the search to a specific resource unless it is your highest priority e.g. a dictionary.
What I am trying to do is "prove/disprove" my assumption that tagging the saints as headwords with the appropriate LCV/Factbook name is sufficient i.e. that it is unnecessary to create a datatype for them despite the multiple permutations of their names. Any suggestions?
i.e. that it is unnecessary to create a datatype for them despite the multiple permutations of their names.
Headwords, LCV tagging, Label tagging, etc are sufficient to overcome 'permutations' in naming provided the tagging is consistent and that you know the tagged name. <Person xxxx> tagging is another method e.g. <Person Paul> for 'Saul' & 'Paul'. I'm not sure a 'Saints' datatype has sufficient advantages, so why do you think that LCV tagging/headwords may be inadequate?
I'm not sure a 'Saints' datatype has sufficient advantages, so why do you think that LCV tagging/headwords may be inadequate?
Quite the reverse. I think there is no need for a datatype and think LCV tagging is sufficient. Another user suggested datatypes.
