Search Examples for Search Query Builder

Thanks for asking, Phil

Some time ago I was preparing for a preaching series on the Trinity and wanted to explore actions one member of the Trinity took in relation to another. For example:

• The Father loving the Son / Spirit
• The Son loving the Father
• The Father sending the Son / Spirit
• The Son sending the Spirit

The Clause Search supports this well but being able to build the searches in a query builder would be helpful

John Fidel said:

if you can simplify that it would go a long way.

+1 for simplified search syntax! I think this is as important as a query builder...

I would like the query builder to be able to find things that currently only possible in Syntax Search (if at all). For example:

1. Arg1 follows Arg2 within 2 words and Arg1 & Arg2 are the same (any) Lemma, while optionally constraining either or both Arguments by part of speech. We'd, of course, need variable arguments for this.
2. Arg1 is separated from Arg2 by "a certain phrase/lemma phrase."

Basically, I want to be able to easily find "structures" (only optionally constrained to verse boundaries). Two reasons for wanting this are 1. to verify/check scholarly claims about the purpose/effect of a particular structure and 2. (once verified) to create a visual filter to alert to this structure (particularly helpful in translation, but useful for any exegetical work).

John Fidel said:

One of the challenges for me is the syntax required for any somewhat complex search. When and where to use { } or [ ] or ( ). It is obvious that the formulas were written by someone used to programming.

A way to understand, where to use { } or just < >

• use {Section datatype} if you know that it will return a section of text e.g. {Section <Event The Israelites cross the Red Sea>};
• the following will return a word(s), or phrase, so don't require  {  }
  
  
  <Person xxxxx>
• <Place xxxxx>
• <Thing xxxxx>

• <Sense =~xxxxx>

 [ ] would be rarely required. You see them most when you type a term in Morph Search and click onto Bible/Basic Search e.g. ([field bible, content] wilderness) is the expansion of wilderness. The (  )  isn't required for such a simple term, so [field bible, content] wilderness would suffice (and it's the same as bible:wilderness). But wilderness  is OK in a Bible/Morph Search, where the result is restricted to bible text.

land OR wilderness AND the is ambiguous, as it is not clear which terms are being OR'ed. But (land OR wilderness) AND the will likely get the result you were after; as opposed to land OR (wilderness AND the).

Regarding my basic hopes for this tool....

As a general petition, what I would hope for on a most basic level from the Search Query builder is that it make inserting special commands for searches (such as the search extensions, etc.) as easy as possible. And that the options of what can be included within those search extensions also be easy to filter and select. One should be able to easily see all the different possible commands, and then once one selects a command, you should be able to see all the different options that can be inserted within that command. 

I understand that you might also have a goal be to add more apparently user-friendly "paradigm-based searches", and some work has been done on that already. While this can be helpful, in the long-term, I am convinced that if you begin by focusing on the basic building blocks of search, and making them as friendly and powerful as possible, that will allow you to easily build out, in a second moment, an extremely powerful and friendly question & answer search query builder. I'm not convinced doing it the other way around will work... and I fear doing so will actually be counter productive long term, as it will not really address the basic problem. 

Search is so vast and powerful in Logos and Verbum - it is easily the most powerful feature in the software. This power implies an almost infinite number of possibilities, and the search query needs to respect that flexibility, making it easier to use. Once it does so, then you can build on top of that quickly and easily paradigm-based searches.

Those are my thoughts on this, anyway. Looking forward to it! Ever since I started using the software (v4) I have considered this the most important and urgent need the software has, so I'm delighted to see you giving this some priority. 

John Fidel said:

I have reviewed this but still can seem to get it right without looking it up.

If you want to know what is available, and the query format, you can look up the documentation (type:manual, type:glossary). Or you can use the Context menu on some text that interests you e.g. as an example of an Event, or a Quote/Allusion. If you select what appears to be a simple Command, then you may be confronted with Declarative Sentence, Informative:Assertive Speech Acts and Obligative: Directive Speech Acts. The Search is easily constructed after making the appropriate selections, but what is appropriate?

I would hope that a Query Builder could resolve my dilemma i.e. it would present (and explain) the alternatives when I specify Quote or Command, and allow them to be combined. If I were to specify Allusion, Directive or Assertive, they should also be understood by the Builder.

Chris Lane said:

I have had some trouble searching for multiple Lemmas simultaneously and have not had much resolution with IT

You can't select multiple lemmas in a resource. If this is still an issue then address it in a new thread, providing more information/examples, etc.

Chris Lane said:

Though you can search for multiple lemmas, correct?

Yes.