Bug, beta 11: Parallel resources not displaying all collections

As the screenshot below shows, the parallel resources menu is missing some collections. On the left is a collection, to be shown in parallel resources, that includes several commentaries, including some on Deuteronomy. On the right is a Deuteronomy parallel resource menu that doesn't show that set, nor several other sets that should also show. What seems to be happening is that parallel resource collections are
only shown in they include the current resource. To me this is
counter-intuitive. They should show if the include the current reference.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dave Hooton

They should show if the include the current reference.

You mean the list should show all your bibles as well as commentaries?

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/94868#Comment_94868

You mean the list should show all your bibles as well as commentaries?

I mean I should be able to choose from any Parallel Resource set that includes the current reference, so yes, that would include a set of Bibles. I suppose it could be limited to resources of the same type as the current resource, but personally I don't see that's necessary.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/94920#Comment_94920

I suppose it could be limited to resources of the same type as the current resource, but personally I don't see that's necessary.

The essence ("by design") of PRA's is to choose the sets that include the current resource and not the current data type. This was the implementation in L3 except that it did not properly handle one resource in multiple PRA's, whereas L4 allows you to choose the appropriate PRA.

Ideally, every resource in a PRA should be indexed by the same data type so it is fairly meaningful to mix bibles and commentaries. In your case you could put a complete single-volume commentary in each of your commentary PRA's to provide the ability to cross from one set to the others.

Dan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/95046#Comment_95046

Could you explain that one more time in English?

I just want all the appropriate commentaries to be displayed for the Bible verse I'm looking at. Why won't it do that?

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/95079#Comment_95079

Could you explain that one more time in English?

I just want all the appropriate commentaries to be displayed for the Bible verse I'm looking at. Why won't it do that?

If you have a collection of commentaries that you have checked as a parallel resource set then these would be the "appropriate commentaries" but you won't see any of them unless the resource with the bible verse is also in that collection.

So, if the resource is a bible you can't expect the "appropriate commentaries" to appear in the list of Parallel Resources unless that bible is also included in the collection of commentaries.

If I've not covered your issue then please elaborate (I apologise for not including a diagram as I'm not working from my Beta system).

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/95079#Comment_95079

I just want all the appropriate commentaries to be displayed for the Bible verse I'm looking at. Why won't it do that?

(I believe Dave answered your question about the purpose of PRAs)

The easiest way to get appropriate commentaries for a passage is to have the Explorer window open and put it in a link set with your main Bible window, so that they are sync'd together. Then the Commentaries section in the Explorer always has links to commentaries on the current passage (and cross references, to boot!--I keep the other Explorer sections closed for performance).

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/95046#Comment_95046

The essence ("by design") of PRA's is to choose the sets that include the current resource and not the current data type. This was the implementation in L3 except that it did not properly handle one resource in multiple PRA's, whereas L4 allows you to choose the appropriate PRA.

I know that was the implementation in L3, but has there ever been a discussion as to whether that's the best way of implementing? I would have thought that at the it would be very useful to have a 'More' link where I could also search PRAs that did NOT include the current resource, but did include the current data type. For example, in my situation I have three PRAs for commentaries: Academic Commentaries, Mid-range commentaries and Expository Commentaries. You can imagine many situations where it would be good to be able to switch between these collections in a few clicks.

(I appreciate your workaround of putting the same one volume commentary in all PRAs, and then switching to that commentary, and then switching to a PRA. That works, but adding an unwanted resource to a collection has consequences elsewhere.)

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/95931#Comment_95931

(I appreciate your workaround of putting the same one volume commentary in all PRAs, and then switching to that commentary, and then switching to a PRA. That works, but adding an unwanted resource to a collection has consequences elsewhere.)

I created a basic layout with a different one-volume commentary for each commentary collection (by category). I can then cycle though each collection as needed.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/95931#Comment_95931

I know that was the implementation in L3, but has there ever been a discussion as to whether that's the best way of implementing?

What I'm saying is that we asked for and got Parallel Resource associations and not Parallel Data Type associations! What you suggest could be accomplished if Logos properly implemented nested collections, or simply recognised the hierarchy of collections, and this would also provide a restriction according to resource type if the user so chose.

For example, your 3 commentary collections are nested within a collection called My_Commentaries. If My_Commentaries is a PRA then you have (parallel) access to every commentary in those 3 sub-collections (assuming they are all PRA's). This provides an elegant way to exclude other resources of the same data type eg. Bibles. Of course, you could choose otherwise by including some bibles. If My_Commentaries is not a PRA then we are back to the current situation!

As hinted above my biggest objection to a data type basis would be the management of different resource types, but the suggested implementation of nested collections is something many had requested of L4 back in the days of L3.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/96265#Comment_96265

What you suggest could be accomplished if Logos properly implemented nested collections, or simply recognised the hierarchy of collections, and this would also provide a restriction according to resource type if the user so chose.

I nearly missed the obvious..

You can do all that I suggested right now ie. nest the 3 commentary collections in My_Commentaries. Further, you don't have to do that as the Logos "ALL Parallel Resources" will include all relevant commentaries.