Metadata, Collections, and Tags ... oh my!
1) I have been trying to think through exactly why I would need to define any collections if I now have searchable/editable tags and, frankly, I cannot come up with a good reason for defining and saving any collections - as long as I have tags. Maybe I am overlooking something?
2) When I use the Library Search (Find) function, is there an order that it searches the metadata in? In other words, does it search My Tags first, then Subject next, then Series, etc? I have tried some brief experiments but I cannot seem to make rhyme nor reason out of what it returns. It would be nice if, for example, when I type in, say, 2003, it would list each item in order according to the metadata. In other words, "The Following Items Contained "2003" in My Tags" "The Following Items Contained "2003" in Subject" The Following Items Contained "2003" in Electronic Publication Date" and so forth.
3) I would like to be able to edit the Logos generated metadata fields, too - not just My Tags. Will we be able to that in the final release?
4) When I type in a search query, it would be nice if we could have some abbreviated syntax. So instead of having top type in "type:bible lang:english", for example, we would only have to type "t:bible l:english"
Instead of Artificial Intelligence, I prefer to continue to rely on Divine Intelligence instructing my Natural Dullness (Ps 32:8, John 16:13a)
Comments
-
JRS said:
1) I have been trying to think through exactly why I would need to define any collections if I now have searchable/editable tags and, frankly, I cannot come up with a good reason for defining and saving any collections - as long as I have tags. Maybe I am overlooking something?
You don't need as many collections, but they do help with complex metadata queries. But I'd rather search English Bibles than enter type:bible lang:English because I'd get results in 4 bibles that I exclude (Minus) in the Collection. Yes, I could tag the 26 I consider English, but I'd rather Logos got their tagging correct and didn't include LXX and BHSMorph (even then I exclude NIRV and KJV Apocrypha).
JRS said:2) When I use the Library Search (Find) function, is there an order that it searches the metadata in? In other words, does it search My Tags first, then Subject next, then Series, etc? I have tried some brief experiments but I cannot seem to make rhyme nor reason out of what it returns. It would be nice if, for example, when I type in, say, 2003, it would list each item in order according to the metadata.
They are obscure, even when ranked. But why type random data 2003 instead of Subject:2003?
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Philip Spitzer said:
dynamic Collection
Hmmm ... I guess I hadn't thought about it that way but I guess it would be dynamic, wouldn't it? IOW, any new resource that fit type:bible lang:english, for example, would automatically be included in the collection. I guess I have been stuck on "static" from L3. Thanks.
Instead of Artificial Intelligence, I prefer to continue to rely on Divine Intelligence instructing my Natural Dullness (Ps 32:8, John 16:13a)
0 -
JRS said:Philip Spitzer said:
dynamic Collection
Hmmm ... I guess I hadn't thought about it that way but I guess it would be dynamic, wouldn't it? IOW, any new resource that fit type:bible lang:english, for example, would automatically be included in the collection. I guess I have been stuck on "static" from L3. Thanks.
It took me a while under Beta 1 to "upgrade" my thinking with the collections but I really like them now. The best way I have thought to harness the power of both the dynamic collections and tags would be to say (type:bible lang:english) OR mytag:FavBible. This way when an exception Bible comes along that I want to add to the collection all I have to do is give it the tag...not open up the collection again.
0 -
Dave Hooton said:
You don't need as many collections, but they do help with complex metadata queries. But I'd rather search English Bibles than enter type:bible lang:English because I'd get results in 4 bibles that I exclude (Minus) in the Collection. Yes, I could tag the 26 I consider English, but I'd rather Logos got their tagging correct and didn't include LXX and BHSMorph (even then I exclude NIRV and KJV Apocrypha).
They are obscure, even when ranked. But why type random data 2003 instead of Subject:2003?
Dave, I grant you the point on "English Bibles" instead of the longer query with its exclusions. But I guess I was thinking along the lines of using truncated or shorthand tags for everything. Granted too, that to tag everything is a bit of a chore but once it is done it is done - and it is done to my liking. Which is why I would like to know if we will be able to adjust the Logos generated tagging. It just seems to me that tagging and collections overlap in function and if one were to put a little bit of initial effort into a reliable set of abbreviated tags, it could be a very quick and powerful system (forgoing the collections). For example, a simple "BEng" would return all the English Bibles that I have so tagged. Similar, BLat, BGrk, BHeb, etc. CGal might return all my commentaries on Galatians, CMat, CJoh, etc. Thinking out loud as I type ... But to do so, I think I need to be able to adjust the Logos tags, as well - just to be sure that their tags and my tags don't get crossed up.
I don't know ... like I said I'm just playing around and trying to think my way thru it before I commit to any one scheme. I don't claim to be the sharpest pencil in the can ...
Instead of Artificial Intelligence, I prefer to continue to rely on Divine Intelligence instructing my Natural Dullness (Ps 32:8, John 16:13a)
0
