[sword-devel] Lexical fields

Timothy S. Nelson wayland at wayland.id.au
Sat Aug 24 07:50:38 MST 2013

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013, Chris Burrell wrote:

> For our lexicon, we don't use SWORD modules because they aren't flexible 
> enough. The main drawback was the lack of segregation of different parts of 
> data.

 	I'm assuming that by "Segregation", you mean that they didn't have a 
wide enough variety of fields in which data could be encoded?

> I'm not an expert but I didn't think the current OSIS would let you do what 
> I attached in the previous files, such that you could retrieve them 
> separately. We also wanted control of how the indexing would happen.

 	Yes, I suspect you're right.

> On the other hand, STEP's datasets are all based off Lucene, so there's no 
> reason why a new 'flexible' Sword module format couldn't be created.

 	I guess that's what I'd like :).  In theory, OSIS allows multiple 
indices; AFAICT SWORD doesn't support this.


| Name: Tim Nelson                 | Because the Creator is,        |
| E-mail: wayland at wayland.id.au    | I am                           |

Version 3.12
GCS d+++ s+: a- C++$ U+++$ P+++$ L+++ E- W+ N+ w--- V- 
PE(+) Y+>++ PGP->+++ R(+) !tv b++ DI++++ D G+ e++>++++ h! y-

More information about the sword-devel mailing list