For some reason <Sense ~ internal feature> is returning some very weird results in both OT and NT that have nothing to do with that sense or any of its sub-senses:
The hits you're showing appear to come from <Sense ~ event> and <Sense ~ knowledge>, which according to BSL are both types of "internal feature". I'll ask someone to comment.
I was just about to comment with roughly the same reply: it looks like "event" at least needs to be moved in the hierarchy. I'll make that change and take a look at the other categories underneath "internal feature" as well. I'll get changes in queue as soon as I'm able.
In general, the higher the levels are in the hierarchy the more abstract and fuzzy they will be, but "event" is certainly in the wrong place. Thanks Mark, for pointing this out.
The ~ operator means "this sense or any of its child senses". <Sense ~ internal feature> is very high up in the hierarchy, almost as high as you can get, so consequently you're getting an awful lots of senses (as seems appropriate, given the "any aspect" nature of the definition):
In the case of Mt 1:11 "deportation", the hierarchy looks like this:
entity > abstraction > internal feature > event > act (deed) > rejection > banishment > exile (expulsion)
So it's a legitimate (though not very useful) search result.
Takeaways:
Thank you. I knew the tilde included sub-senses, and I did check the BSL to see whether the results were sub-senses of "internal feature". But when I looked at the BSL for "exile (expulsion)", it doesn't give any indication that it could be traced back to "internal feature".
I understand there may not be enough room in the right-hand panel for five or more generations, but there could certainly be a visual indicator to the left of "rejection" to indicate there's more to see. More importantly, I can't see any reason why all levels can't be listed under "relationships". That would make the tool more user-friendly and the data more accurate.
While we're on the subject, several of the senses returned by this search are derived from <Sense Lord God> which is also a sub-sense of <Sense ~ internal feature>. That also seems quite wrong.
In this case it's because <Sense ~ Lord God> is a sub-sense of <Sense ~ supernatural being>. That's obviously fair enough, but <Sense ~ supernatural being> is a child of <Sense ~ belief>. So the whole logic is:
entity -> abstraction -> cognition -> cognitive content -> belief -> supernatural being -> God (Israelite) -> Lord God
"belief" is defined in the BSL as "any cognitive content held as true", but as "supernatural being" is much more than "cognitive content", it isn't wholly contained within the parent-sense, and therefore shouldn't be a child sense IMO (unless you take an anti-supernatural stance, of course).
While we're on the subject, several of the senses returned by this search are derived from <Sense Lord God> which is also a sub-sense of <Sense ~ internal feature>. That also seems quite wrong. In this case it's because <Sense ~ Lord God> is a sub-sense of <Sense ~ supernatural being>. That's obviously fair enough, but <Sense ~ supernatural being> is a child of <Sense ~ belief>. So the whole logic is: entity -> abstraction -> cognition -> cognitive content -> belief -> supernatural being -> God (Israelite) -> Lord God "belief" is defined in the BSL as "any cognitive content held as true", but as "supernatural being" is much more than "cognitive content", it isn't wholly contained within the parent-sense, and therefore shouldn't be a child sense IMO (unless you take an anti-supernatural stance, of course).
Since we used a substantial part of the WordNet project in building the Bible Sense Lexicon, we also inherited some of their structural decisions, probably including this one. We can reorganize the hierarchy as we wish, so that's not really a defense, just a statement about how we got where we are. There are a number of ways in which we'd like to rework this data, but that larger project hasn't reached the top of the priority list yet. That shouldn't discourage you from reporting ways in which you find it unhelpful, however, and we'll fix the ones we can.
Thanks, Mark. The hierarchy for supernatural-being is definitely mixed up as well at the higher levels. As per the documentation on the BSL, we made use of English WordNet for drafting the hierarchy. This error seems to be a holdover from that process that didn't get removed when we added our own hierarchy for supernatural-being (i.e., child of supernatural-entity). I'll add this to my list of bugs to fix.
We need a "..." like on other messaging systems to see when someone else is typing a response [:)]
