ACKNOWLEDGED BUG? suggested value omits the obvious

I have run a Search on a particular Event; I have identified that Event in the Biblical Event Navigator; I try to find the Event in Factbook and get no match. I get 1 full match on "The flood" but it refers to a substance rather than an event. I get 2 events but they both simply include my phrase as a subset of their value ... the exact match on Event is not shown so it appears that my entry is not in Factbook.

Note that when I give the additional hint of starting with "<Event " the application finds my intended term.

I would expect all exact matches to show. I don't know if these results are the result of limiting the suggestions to three or failing to account for multiple perfect matches of differing entity types. But one can waste a fair amount of time trying to figure out what went awry in a simple search.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Sean Boisen

This is by design, MJ. We use an internal-only dataset (the Unified Annotation Vocabulary, or UAV) to combine different dataset items that are "equivalent enough" so they are displayed on a single Factbook page. That avoids fragmenting information and requiring users to think too hard about our data models and where to look for what.

In this case we've combined the information for floods as a thing with the flood episode and the flood as topic: so the Factbook page https://ref.ly/logos4/Factbook?ref=bk.%24flood shows information from all three of those data items.

The UAV is still a work in progress: in particular, there are numerous pages that still need merging. In this case, our merging may occasionally produce mild surprise (for very knowledgable users), in the interests of getting less-sophisticated users to as much information as possible about the flood based on choosing that from the dropdown.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1074161#Comment_1074161

That avoids fragmenting information and requiring users to think too hard about our data models and where to look for what.

I understand what you are trying to do. However, were I an absolute novice user, I would expect to be able to make a choice that was EXACTLY what was shown me in the source that made me enter the value. I would expect things with similar names to be different in some way OR to be synonyms. Presenting the same data for similar names is a solid design although one group of users would have to become accustomed to as it is counter-intuitive. Not having consistency in the terms offered/presented the user is not. I can run a test on novice users if you would like.

Sean Boisen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1074180#Comment_1074180

The "EXACTLY" part is in conflict with the UAV merging strategy: for this case, we're combining

"Flood" (a biblical thing)
"Flood" (an LCV concept with half a dozen synonyms)
"The flood" (a biblical episode)

We settled on "Flood" as the Factbook title (since the biblical thing is the primary associated data), but if we'd used "The flood" you'd have the same name mismatch coming from the other types of data. I'm not sure I see a way around this issue, other than "make all data sets use the same terminology" (and that ship was washed out by a flood of data we've created over the last ten+ years).

Separate point: you can make the case the Flood-as thing is more general than the Noahic flood, and should therefore not be combined with the other two. I might even agree: I'll ask Liz the curator to ponder this one further.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1074209#Comment_1074209

Separate point: you can make the case the Flood-as thing is more general than the Noahic flood, and should therefore not be combined with the other two. I might even agree: I'll ask Liz the curator to ponder this one further.

I think this would be a major improvement.