Okay, Faithlife, you have me totally confused with this change

Another thread led me to explore recent changes to the type metadata in the library. Somehow, I believe, Faithlife believes this will improve the situation ... I have yet to see how.

A sample:

Note one volume is now tagged "systematic theology" while only one of the 8 works in this volume is systematic theology. It appears that the new type which applies at the "work" level is applied at the "printed volume" level. Yes, I know this isn't a new problem but what is gained by making more items wrong?

Note the volume labeled "Bible Commentary", its historic value, contains one Bible Commentary out of 17 works ... and I would label it Liturgies because that is of more interest to me personally. I assume that this is to make the Commentaries section of the Guide and the Parallel Resources function work ... but shouldn't we be seeing evidence that the type is being moved to the "work" level in mixed anthologies?

And I assumed that you've done some sort of review on how this might affect our collection rules? In short, I am confused that Faithlife didn't give an explanation and warning before rolling this out ... or was I again simply not paying attention.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Fr Devin Roza

I dream of the day in which the software can present a "virtual" library view and search results view, in which all of these individual works which are inside of a single volume can be seen "as if" they were individual resources, with the work in which they are found simply another column of metadata.

I know that Faithlife cannot "cannibalize" the works as they are sold, and I fully agree with that, but I would hope that a "virtual" view could be possible someday (maybe with the ability to switch back and forth between the virtual and one-volume view).

It would imply a massive overhaul of the software, I imagine, but would provide so much more functionality.

Then a more precise "Type" be assigned to the individual works.

Dave Hooton

In short, I am confused that Faithlife didn't give an explanation and warning before rolling this out ... or was I again simply not paying attention.

It had been labelled as "Commentary", along with several 'Homilies' in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, a long time ago as I've tagged them as "Notes". This has been the trend, along with works having "Notes" or "Guide" in their title. Which begs the question why we have type:Bible Notes, which still qualifies works for the Commentaries section. One proposal - rejected - was that all ECF should be type:Ancient Manuscript.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770791#Comment_770791

I know that Faithlife cannot "cannibalize" the works as they are sold,

They did that with Bunyan's works, and it isn't pretty. But they can do it if it's best. They also do it for a number of other books such as TENT, and several commentaries that contain an edition of the Grek text.

But I agree that a solution that somehow allows 'sub-resources' would be best (although I have no clue as to how that would work).

James Taylor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770791#Comment_770791

a "virtual" library view and search results view, in which all of these individual works which are inside of a single volume can be seen "as if" they were individual resources, with the work in which they are found simply another column of metadata.

wow, that would be great, now I'm dreaming too. [S][O]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770810#Comment_770810

But I agree that a solution that somehow allows 'sub-resources' would be best (although I have no clue as to how that would work).

The "sub-resources" I have in my library have physically split up the file ... and in some cases getting all the pieces downloaded has been problematic. What I'd like to see is virtual sub-resources which allows for Logos typing and user mytagging at a works level without physically splitting the resource file.

Eli Evans (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770915#Comment_770915

We recently introduced the new "Systematic Theologies" type into the system. This looks like a zealous over-application to me, but what do I know? I'll alert Kyle and Phil and if they agree, one of them will change it.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770948#Comment_770948

but what do I know?

We'll find out at the Open House on Monday won't we? [;)]

Eli Evans (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770951#Comment_770951

Yep!

Phil Gons (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770791#Comment_770791

I dream of the day in which the software can present a "virtual" library view and search results view, in which all of these individual works which are inside of a single volume can be seen "as if" they were individual resources, with the work in which they are found simply another column of metadata.

I know that Faithlife cannot "cannibalize" the works as they are sold, and I fully agree with that, but I would hope that a "virtual" view could be possible someday (maybe with the ability to switch back and forth between the virtual and one-volume view).

It would imply a massive overhaul of the software, I imagine, but would provide so much more functionality.

This has been on my list for years. We had it scheduled for 6.6, but it turned out to be a much larger undertaking that we originally thought. We're back at the drawing board, but we do hope to be able to bring something like this eventually.

Then a more precise "Type" be assigned to the individual works.

Yes, work/content metadata would be very useful and would be a necessary part of doing this right. Hopefully one day!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/771024#Comment_771024

Phil, there are a number of items where the tagging for features implemented many iterations ago has not been completed, legacy items that need serious upgrading because our computers now have the power to handle it correctly rather than with lame compromises, items such as the LCV that need significant broadening to match the broad interests of your users. Yes, every established software application has its legacy limitations ... but some of your users aren't getting any younger ... in fact I suspect none of your users is getting any younger, and we'd really like to see our patience rewarded in this lifetime. [8-|]