Here's another one that Eli said he's happy to change.
Not sure why you're flooding the forum with bug reports like this! It's essentially one big bug, and yes I hope it gets sorted out or it's essentially garbage data.
Thank you, may I have another??!!??
Not sure why you're flooding the forum with bug reports like this! It's essentially one big bug,
Because everyone is served best when each bug is reported/discussed separately. If only one report gets filed, then it'll get marked as "fixed" when it hasn't really been. This isn't my first circus!
Not sure why you're flooding the forum with bug reports like this! It's essentially one big bug, Because everyone is served best when each bug is reported/discussed separately. If only one report gets filed, then it'll get marked as "fixed" when it hasn't really been. This isn't my first circus!
As MJ would say, “You’re posting in the wrong category.” Maybe you should post in the Logos 8 side of the forum. 👍😁👌 It does look like spam, though. Make a single post in Logos 8 and add all the reports in a list format. 1....2....3....,etc. It’ll be better that way and it’ll make your circus 🎪 less annoying 👍😁👌
DAL
As MJ would say, “You’re posting in the wrong category.”
Not so sure! Anything to do with the software code (in my perception) I posted to the beta forum since that's what I'm running, but all Data related stuff is engine agnostic so I didn't think it should go in any particular version forum. Could be mistaken...
Could be mistaken...
It's just the heuristic. Or call it experience. Beta forum tends to be closely monitored for bugs, stable forum of the main software version (i.e. currently Logos 8) tends to be monitored, but less close, whereas in General they normally just let us play and don't bother.
Could be mistaken... It's just the heuristic. Or call it experience. Beta forum tends to be closely monitored for bugs, stable forum of the main software version (i.e. currently Logos 8) tends to be monitored, but less close, whereas in General they normally just let us play and don't bother.
Same reasoning MJ gave once 👍😁👌 It’s about visibility 😜
[Y] Just to clarify that I don't really mind because to me these bugs are quite serious.
I'll see about doing this. Note that it is less of a big deal to change in the Cantillation interactive. Changing it in the Cantillation Trees and database means that any query that currently uses Meteg, Maqqef, or Paseq will be broken after the change is made.
Is it still worth considering this change?
Changing it in the Cantillation Trees and database means that any query that currently uses Meteg, Maqqef, or Paseq will be broken after the change is made.
Why should fixing the underlying data break queries?
Getting the data fixed prevents invalid, even misleading results.
Hi Lee.
The queries are essentially hierarchical, and by moving accents from one category into a new category changes the hierarchy of the query. You should be able to revise the queries and get results; I just want folks to know that if this change to the structure of the database is made, then queries which rely on the old structure will need to be revised to use the new structure.
I just want folks to know that if this change to the structure of the database is made, then queries which rely on the old structure will need to be revised to use the new structure.
I'm not sure I completely understand the knock-on consequences, but in my limited comprehension getting the data fixed is always a win.
Maybe Reuben will chime in with the exact fixes that need to be made. You may need to set up a call.
Another alternative is to get M. Futato or your in-house scholars on board.
I understand the fix and what needs to be done for this particular request. I just want to be clear in setting expectations of folks who use the dataset that queries that presently specify maqqef, meteg, and paseq as conjunctive accents will need to be adjusted in order to be functional with the updated dataset material.
On the other items I've posted, I'm pretty sure I'm understanding Reuben's reports properly in comparison with Richter's ambiguity notes, but figure asking for confirmation *before* we generate and ship a new version of the database material is probably better for all involved.
Thanks for your excellent response.
As to queries and documentation from here on, let the horse drive the cart and the dog wag the tail, i.e. let the baseline data be correct.
I would say that it is, especially in light of the reliability/accuracy of queries based on class.
