The example from https://www.jonmsterling.com/jms-00WV.xml shows
below

  \scope{
   \open\query
   \compl{\taxon{theorem}}
  }

forester reports

  12 |   \compl{\taxon{theorem}}
     ^ tried to compile query constructor to XML

What did I miss?

On 16 Jul 2024, at 14:35, Lîm Tsú-thuàn wrote:

> The example from https://www.jonmsterling.com/jms-00WV.xml shows
> below
>
>   \scope{
>    \open\query
>    \compl{\taxon{theorem}}
>   }
>
> forester reports
>
>   12 |   \compl{\taxon{theorem}}
>      ^ tried to compile query constructor to XML
>
> What did I miss?

Ah, perhaps I should make this more clear, thanks for pointing it out. 
Just like in previous versions of Forester, a query expression needs to 
be wrapped in a \query command to be run. So the quoted code specifies 
the query, but executing it is another thing. To do that, you would 
need:

     \query{
      \open\query
      \compl{\taxon{theorem}}
     }

Best,
Jon

Thanks for bringing this up, I had the same confusion. Thanks to Jon's
explanation, I managed to use the new query language to do something I
wanted to do for a long time: querying all potentially lost notes
(i.e. that are not transcluded by any root notes, and not marked as
draft (because I have queries by topic for drafts) ):

```
\scope{
  \open\query
  \open\rel
  \def\query/root{
    \union{\tag{root}}{\tag{notes}}
  }
  \def\query/root/transcluded{
    \union-fam{\query/root}{\paths}{\outgoing}{\transclusion}
  }
  \def\query/has/home{
    \union{\query/root}{\query/root/transcluded}
  }
  \def\query/normal{
    \compl{
      \union{\query/root}{\tag{draft}}{\tag{macro}}{\taxon{person}}{\taxon{reference}}
    }
  }
  \def\query/lost{
    \isect{\query/normal}{\compl{\query/has/home}}
  }
  \query{
    \open\query
    \lost
  }
}
```

Besides the need to wrap the query in a `\query` block, there are some
other tiny issues in examples:

1. example jms-00X3 assumed `\open\rel`
2. example jms-00X3 called `\query/transclusion-coslice` with a
renamed `\tree-under`
3. if one places the definition of a query and another definition
using the first query together (e.g. jms-00X4 + jms-00X3), it won't
work, because a query `xyz` just defined can not be resolved with
`\xyz` in the same scope but need a full `\query/xyz`, this can be
reproduced by the example above by calling `\root` instead of
`\query/root`.

On 17 Jul 2024, at 14:29, Utensil Song wrote:

> Thanks for bringing this up, I had the same confusion. Thanks to Jon's
> explanation, I managed to use the new query language to do something I
> wanted to do for a long time: querying all potentially lost notes
> (i.e. that are not transcluded by any root notes, and not marked as
> draft (because I have queries by topic for drafts) ):
>
> ```
> \scope{
>   \open\query
>   \open\rel
>   \def\query/root{
>     \union{\tag{root}}{\tag{notes}}
>   }
>   \def\query/root/transcluded{
>     \union-fam{\query/root}{\paths}{\outgoing}{\transclusion}
>   }
>   \def\query/has/home{
>     \union{\query/root}{\query/root/transcluded}
>   }
>   \def\query/normal{
>     \compl{
>       \union{\query/root}{\tag{draft}}{\tag{macro}}{\taxon{person}}{\taxon{reference}}
>     }
>   }
>   \def\query/lost{
>     \isect{\query/normal}{\compl{\query/has/home}}
>   }
>   \query{
>     \open\query
>     \lost
>   }
> }
> ```
>

That's very cool, thanks for sharing!

> Besides the need to wrap the query in a `\query` block, there are some
> other tiny issues in examples:
>
> 1. example jms-00X3 assumed `\open\rel`
> 2. example jms-00X3 called `\query/transclusion-coslice` with a
> renamed `\tree-under`
> 3. if one places the definition of a query and another definition
> using the first query together (e.g. jms-00X4 + jms-00X3), it won't
> work, because a query `xyz` just defined can not be resolved with
> `\xyz` in the same scope but need a full `\query/xyz`, this can be
> reproduced by the example above by calling `\root` instead of
> `\query/root`.

I've now updated the release notes to be a bit more clear about the need 
to call \query, and I have fixed issues (1-3) mentioned by untensil 
above.

Thanks to everyone for your feedback!

Best,
Jon

Thanks for the updates in the release notes!

I have a new issue regarding the previous shared query snippets. It
turns out to return more results than I expected, particularly, the
"unstable" trees that are introduced by `\subtree`, they should be
ruled out by the query as they have parents thus are not lost. Reading
https://www.jonmsterling.com/jms-00WS.xml, there seems to be no
built-in relation symbols for these unstable trees, whose signature
would be having a `<fr:parent>` in its XML, but this is not detectable
from the query language. In theory, this is also a type of relation,
not transclusion, but parent ship.

Wonder if there could be some support towards this direction.

Regards,

Utensil Song

On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 12:22 AM Jon Sterling <jon@jonmsterling.com> wrote:
>
> On 17 Jul 2024, at 14:29, Utensil Song wrote:
>
> > Thanks for bringing this up, I had the same confusion. Thanks to Jon's
> > explanation, I managed to use the new query language to do something I
> > wanted to do for a long time: querying all potentially lost notes
> > (i.e. that are not transcluded by any root notes, and not marked as
> > draft (because I have queries by topic for drafts) ):
> >
> > ```
> > \scope{
> >   \open\query
> >   \open\rel
> >   \def\query/root{
> >     \union{\tag{root}}{\tag{notes}}
> >   }
> >   \def\query/root/transcluded{
> >     \union-fam{\query/root}{\paths}{\outgoing}{\transclusion}
> >   }
> >   \def\query/has/home{
> >     \union{\query/root}{\query/root/transcluded}
> >   }
> >   \def\query/normal{
> >     \compl{
> >       \union{\query/root}{\tag{draft}}{\tag{macro}}{\taxon{person}}{\taxon{reference}}
> >     }
> >   }
> >   \def\query/lost{
> >     \isect{\query/normal}{\compl{\query/has/home}}
> >   }
> >   \query{
> >     \open\query
> >     \lost
> >   }
> > }
> > ```
> >
>
> That's very cool, thanks for sharing!
>
> > Besides the need to wrap the query in a `\query` block, there are some
> > other tiny issues in examples:
> >
> > 1. example jms-00X3 assumed `\open\rel`
> > 2. example jms-00X3 called `\query/transclusion-coslice` with a
> > renamed `\tree-under`
> > 3. if one places the definition of a query and another definition
> > using the first query together (e.g. jms-00X4 + jms-00X3), it won't
> > work, because a query `xyz` just defined can not be resolved with
> > `\xyz` in the same scope but need a full `\query/xyz`, this can be
> > reproduced by the example above by calling `\root` instead of
> > `\query/root`.
>
> I've now updated the release notes to be a bit more clear about the need
> to call \query, and I have fixed issues (1-3) mentioned by untensil
> above.
>
> Thanks to everyone for your feedback!
>
> Best,
> Jon



-- 
In fascination of creating worlds by words,and in pursuit of words
behind the world.