I think Dr. Holmstedt summed it up best at http://www.accordanc...ent +near +east :
“There are myriad secondary sources, many of which become dated and less usable within 10-15 years. Accordance's original focus has been on original language corpora related to biblical studies and, in my opinion, this is sets them apart and should continue to be their focus.
For instance, while I am slowly expanding the NWS module (especially the Phoenician texts and revising the Hebrew), the Ugaritic database is not morphological tagged. Granted, with languages like Ugaritic or the other NWS epigraphic texts, there is less clarity on the morphological tagging than the Hebrew Masoretic tradition provides, a good scholarly educated guess at the morphology would be useful to students and scholars alike. Translations reflect the same "guess" but don't provide the explicit language analysis that a morph (and syntax) tagged text provides serious students.
So, if we are going to encourage Accordance to expand, let's do it in the direction of its existing strengths —ancient textual corpora that are morphologically tagged, not modern scholarship.”
Then, my response,
“I agree with Dr. Holmstedt, that the focus should be on morphologically (and syntactically) tagged texts. That is where I think Acc should start with the Ugaritic material. But then, a lexicon would definitely be useful for students, and to most scholars. I also agree regarding translations. But if a few grammars were included, they contain translations and often language analysis for them. It is also useful to compare analyses of the same passage in different grammars. The best grammars would also be updated in new editions.”
And, Dr. Holmstedt again,
“ . . . analyzed texts, lexica, and select reference grammars (not teaching grammars) go hand-in-hand in serious work; I simply overlooked the latter in my earlier comment.”