Bug: Multiple problems with the lemma חצב - very inconsistent results in BWS

I've submitted your report to development. Thanks.

Mark Barnes said:

AFAT (top right) has selected the wrong homograph for lexicon lookup, though the correct homograph for everything else in the report.

I'm guessing you're getting that result by typing in the lemma, not by right clicking the word in context in Is 5:2 and launching directly from the text. Launching from the text will get what you'd expect for the KeyLink section. It sometimes happens that a single word has more than one destination in a given lexicon, and if you just type in the word, one of the KeyLink destinations is chosen at "random" (it isn't actually random, it is hard coded somewhere, but the best guess is produced by a script that Development wrote where the logic for which one is chosen isn't always obvious to the end user - maybe they could do a better job of always selecting the most common match for a given multi-target lemma, but if you launch the BWS from a right click menu, you'll get context sensitive KeyLink destinations that will be consistently more correct for the text you're studying).

Mark Barnes said:

WHM/SESB (bottom left/right) have zero results in the spark graph, and in example uses.

Much of the data for BWS comes from the Andersen-Forbes database, regardless of where you start out - the exception is the Textual Searches section, which is specific to the version you start from. Since the lexical analysis of each database varies quite a bit, there is a bit of code written by one of the developers that makes the conversion between one database and another. The SESB is producing zero hits and a fairly empty report on many words, which means that it isn't properly hooked into this system. This feature is generally working with WHM, but might have problems on some words (like this one) where the relationship between the analysis of the two databases is complex (many lemmas mapping to many lemmas). We'll look into this.

Mark Barnes said:

WIVU (not shown) has 17 results in the spark graph, but 25 in the Hebrew Bible section.

The differing hit count with WIVU is basically because WIVU analyzes  חֹצֵב as a participle instead of as a separate noun - a perfectly defensible position, even if it differs from the others. In Hebrew, many nouns are derived from verbs. But Hebrew verbs have participle forms which can function like nouns. So sometimes you can debate whether a participle should be grouped with as a verb or broken into a separate entry as a noun.

David Knoll said:

Bible Word Study in WIVU and AFAT return the right results in the Hebrew Bible Section (i.e. according to tagging of the relevant databases). But it always uses morphology similar to WHM 4.2 for the spark graph.

I'm pretty sure the spark graph info comes from the reverse interlinear data, which is based on AFAT.

David Knoll said:

The results when you do a search with WIVU or AFAT (When clicking on the link in the Hebrew Bible section for instance) in analysis view are wrong: The verse that is displayed as 1Ki 5:15 is actually 1Ki 5:29 (also in other hits).

Actually, this is a place where the Hebrew verse numbering is different from the English, so this is behaving correctly. (Edit: my bad, I hadn't read carefully that this was in analysis view, not BWS. Yes, the conversion to the default Bible data type when searching the Hebrew Bible looks like a bug to me.)

David Knoll said:

But this is merely a coincidence the Lemma section uses WHM 4.2 no matter where the BWS is triggered from.

The lemma section (and KeyLinking in general) is not based on the WHM 4.2. For most of the lexicons (not counting Strong's-based resources) we have custom KeyLink tables designed to provide a good look-up no matter how a database spells a word or what homograph numbers (if any) are present. This means that KeyLinking isn't based on a database, it is based on the analysis of the lexicon itself. So in some cases, you'll navigate to the "right" entry in the lexicon, even if that clashes with the alternate analysis of the database you are using. This method has a number of significant advantages in terms of maintainability (we don't have to re-ship every lexicon every time a database changes its analysis on one word - databases change more often than lexicons), the time it takes to create KeyLink tables (we can create one table for the entire Hebrew Bible, not one table for every database), the ability to add new Hebrew databases without needing to create a new KeyLink table for every lexicon, the ability to compare different databases (we can index based on the surface form instead of the 'lemma' so that the same word in two databases can be lined up even if they disagree on the analysis) - besides the obvious benefit of respecting the analysis of the lexicon (which is a benefit not because the lexicon is always right when there is a conflict with the database, but rather because if you follow the database where it disagrees with the lexicon, you're likely to miss notes specific to the verse you are studying because you're not looking at the article that treats your verse).

Vincent Setterholm said:

I'm pretty sure the spark graph info comes from the reverse interlinear data, which is based on AFAT.

Yep checked that. But if you hover on the number of hits you get the explanation:  "Number of hits in Book/ Number of words in book" this is actually wrong because AFAT for that lemma has  17 hits in 16 verses (and BWS graph reads 16) WHM has 16 results in 14 verses. So I think either the explanation which appears when you hover on the number needs to be changed or the way the number is generated needs to be changed. 

Why can't I get the relevant data in the graph from where the BWS was generated? (If I right click from WIVU I should get data from WIVU...)

Vincent Setterholm said:

The lemma section (and KeyLinking in general) is not based on the WHM 4.2. For most of the lexicons (not counting Strong's-based resources) we have custom KeyLink tables designed to provide a good look-up no matter how a database spells a word or what homograph numbers (if any) are present. This means that KeyLinking isn't based on a database, it is based on the analysis of the lexicon itself. So in some cases, you'll navigate to the "right" entry in the lexicon, even if that clashes with the alternate analysis of the database you are using. This method has a number of significant advantages in terms of maintainability (we don't have to re-ship every lexicon every time a database changes its analysis on one word - databases change more often than lexicons), the time it takes to create KeyLink tables (we can create one table for the entire Hebrew Bible, not one table for every database), the ability to add new Hebrew databases without needing to create a new KeyLink table for every lexicon, the ability to compare different databases (we can index based on the surface form instead of the 'lemma' so that the same word in two databases can be lined up even if they disagree on the analysis) - besides the obvious benefit of respecting the analysis of the lexicon (which is a benefit not because the lexicon is always right when there is a conflict with the database, but rather because if you follow the database where it disagrees with the lexicon, you're likely to miss notes specific to the verse you are studying because you're not looking at the article that treats your verse).

I am impressed! How do you analyse HALOT for instance? Is it machine generated or was there a linguist who actually read every definition and matched it to the appropriate occurrences? I mean not every lemma in HALOT ends with a cross, so you actually have to decide for each word to what homonym it fits best. I am only curious as to how this is technically achieved .

Another thing: One of the advantages of Logos is that you get several morphologies (AFAT, WHM, WIVU, and hopefully the much anticipated Richter) but you actually have to compare them manually. That means search the lemma in each database and then compare them line by line.   Couldn't you offer us a tool that would make the comparison easier? Like highlighting where WHM and WIVU diffeṙ?  It would be very useful, not so much for the obvious questions like if a participle is a verb or a noun but for the analysis of the word מלתעות for instance.

Mark Barnes said:

Actually, no. I launched it from AFAT 1 Kings 5:29. (It seems to work correctly from other locations, but not from there.) So I think it is a bug

I think it is not a bug because as Mr Setterholm said they follow the lexicon and HALOT analyses this participle as a Nomen Agentis and references this verse.