Inconsistent resource types

I've noticed a new trend lately in some resources that have shipped over the past couple of months. Previously, Logos made it quite clear that the type "Dictionary" was for true dictionaries, where each entry was a definition of a headword, either in the same language or in another language for foreign language dictionaries. "Encyclopedia" was the type for resources where each entry was an article on a headword (thus Bible Dictionaries, even though they have "dictionary" in their title are Encyclopedias in Logos's taxonomy).

But now we've got the following new resources which are all type Dictionary. I think this is incorrect and they should be Encyclopedias, and I've reported it as such in the Metadata Correction Proposals wiki page.

A Dictionary of the Bible (by Phillip Schaff)
Handbook for Biblical Interpretation: An Essential Guide to Methods, Terms, and Concepts
The Prayer Book Dictionary
The Westminster Bible Dictionary

If I'm wrong, would someone please explain the new strategy to me?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Kyle G. Anderson

Thanks Rosie. We'll look into getting these fixed.

Kyle G. Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/548715#Comment_548715

The resource type has been updated.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/548782#Comment_548782

Glad to hear it. However, there's a whole page full of metadata errors at Metadata correction proposals, and most of them have been there for months or even years. Could you please fix at least the easy ones, and then keep fixing them as they are added.

When the metadata is wrong, books don't get included in collections they should be included in. And when books aren't included in collections they should be included in, they don't turn up in searches where they should have turned up. And when they don't turn up in searches where they should have turned up, one may end up missing the most relevant search hit one had in one's library -- and waste hours looking through less good ones.

Also, you're supposed to move things from the page above to Metadata correction proposals – Addressed by Logos when you fix them. You missed that part.[;)]

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/548782#Comment_548782

The resource type has been updated.

Thanks for the quick fixes, Kyle!

I echo fgh's request that you continue looking at the wiki page as a repository of metadata yet to be fixed, and move them out to the archive page once they've been fixed. It helps us continue to believe it's worth our while reporting things, and we have a place to check to see whether something we find has been reported already or not. Keeping the archive page going isn't so important, IMO, but I guess it's a nice record of accomplishments.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/549128#Comment_549128

Keeping the archive page going isn't so important, IMO

Agreed. If you've done what we asked, I see no particular need to move things there, but if you've denied or altered a request, I appreciate the ability to see an explanation. And, of course, removing things from the first page is important.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/549138#Comment_549138

Getting Subject metadata correct is important if you've seen some of the long, complicated rules using Title and Author with ANDNOT.

I even added a rule so you (Logos) could identify commentaries with Subject issues. It is worth noting that they correspond to bible commentaries that I have objected to being classed as such i.e. their Subject matter (e.g. Handbooks, Outlines, Introductions) supports my objection! But if their Type is correct then the Subject should be consistent with all other commentaries.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/549190#Comment_549190

Bump.

Kyle G. Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/549567#Comment_549567

Thanks for the reminder. I agree it's important to keep the proposal page up to date when we make a fix.

Addressing these corrections is always on our list. Due to other priorities, we have hit a stretch where we haven't been able to fix any in awhile. I apologize for this.