I guess syntax searching in B4 is still a little incomplete?

I tried a syntax search just to see how things were progressing and notice that when I used Louw-Nida criteria; the search failed.

See the picture.

Is this because the syntax feature is still getting worked out?

Note: it's hard to see what's going on. When searching for catagory 93; names, the search fails but when the word is left blank; the search works. This search was modeled after a passage in James that should have returned results.

Find more posts tagged with

Performance

Comments

Dave Hooton

It has not progressed from B3. Now we know it cannot search on LN domains!

Rick Brannan (Logos)

Is this because the syntax feature is still getting worked out?

Hi Robert.

My guess is that this is not the syntax searching feature, but the OpenText.org database (and accompanying dialog properties) themselves. My attention of late has been in getting a functional syntax database for the Lexham Syntax Graphs (!) but know this (semantic domains) is on my list to revisit for OpenText.org.

Robert Pavich

Pay no attention to that wire going from your hood to your gas tank, Rick... [6]

Rick Brannan (Logos)

but know this (semantic domains) is on my list to revisit for OpenText.org.

I think this will be addressed for OpenText.org material in the next beta. Specifying semantic domain, domain/subdomain, and domain/article will function like the other databases (Lexham Syntax Graphs, Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament) where you key in the domain/etc and it will validate against a list of known, used domains/subdomains/articles.

I just ran a test search and it seems to function as expected. See below graphic. (See, I'm even subject to indexing -- but the syntax search ran fine while indexing 400+ books on my box at Logos)

Now, about that wire from my hood to my gas tank ...

Dave Hooton

I think this will be addressed for OpenText.org material in the next beta. Specifying semantic domain, domain/subdomain, and domain/article

Thanks, Rick.

I'm waiting for a functioning "group", "unordered group". I notice "gap" still seems to merit a mention - would you comment on its apparent necessity?

Cameron Watters (Faithlife)

I'm waiting for a functioning "group", "unordered group".

Unordered groups should work correctly in Beta 5, where correctly means: like they did in 3.0.