LOGOS: Your recent response to Metadata Tagging Proposals

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/129942#Comment_129942

Frank Fenby said:

Jim Towler said:

The current MyTags is great, but I'm already using the field for multiple purposes and its not pretty!

Adding more user fields may be a good idea. I just want the meta-data that is shipped with the product to be changeable by Logos (alone) without having to coordinate it with a program release.

Unfortunately, the metadata changes discussed by Louis and myself will result in changes to both L4 and the definition of user dynamic collections. Thereafter your ideal should be achievable (and also not impact users!).

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/129946#Comment_129946

I've just discovered that categorising translated ancient manuscripts as monographs prevents parallel resources working properly. Another reason why it's the wrong policy in my view.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/129936#Comment_129936

Frank Fenby said:

In "a former life" as a computer business system designer, I would not allow a field to have multiple meanings. Every time I did allow it, I got in trouble, so I outlawed it. Meta-data for collection building is a different "meaning" (construct) than meta-data for program control. They should, IMHO, be independent variables (separate fields).

Thanks for the explanation. I view it slightly differently in that most of my collections are based on the same definitions as Logos' metadata. I use mytags when I want to use independent variables. I assumed that the need to make program updates was solely because of legacy data and would cease to occur once all metadata was converted to the current standards. I agree that accurate data modeling, including normalizing,  is essential to a successful system.

Jonathan Burke

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/129936#Comment_129936

Frank Fenby said:

I remember a comment or two from Logos that meta-data changes "can" require program updates. IMHO meta-data should be no more complicated to change then correcting a spelling error in a resource. In "a former life" as a computer business system designer, I would not allow a field to have multiple meanings. Every time I did allow it, I got in trouble, so I outlawed it. Meta-data for collection building is a different "meaning" (construct) than meta-data for program control. They should, IMHO, be independent variables (separate fields).

I agree with this. It's a standard procedure of normalization to identify any multiple values in single fields and split them into individual fields. This allows for far more powerful indexing, and if this change was made to Logos then collection rules could be even more flexible and intuitive.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/183101#Comment_183101

Jonathan Burke said:

I agree with this. It's a standard procedure of normalization to identify any multiple values in single fields and split them into individual fields. This allows for far more powerful indexing, and if this change was made to Logos then collection rules could be even more flexible and intuitive.

I would also love to be able to have multiple user-defined fields, not have to overload tags the way we do now. I use it to record what base package or bundle I purchased a resource in, what date I bought it, whether it was a pre-pub or a special sale, and then all the tags I want to use for making collections. It would be nice to be able to view my library sorted in chronological order by when I acquired each resource. That way I can continue focusing on familiarizing myself more with the more recently purchased books. Can't do that now the way tags currently work. Well, I can group by tag, and that is sort of what I want, but then I've got to expand each date to see what items I bought on that date. And there's all the other clutter and redundancy since there's a group for each tag I've used.

Jonathan Burke

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/183189#Comment_183189

Rosie Perera said:

I would also love to be able to have multiple user-defined fields, not have to overload tags the way we do now. I use it to record what base package or bundle I purchased a resource in, what date I bought it, whether it was a pre-pub or a special sale, and then all the tags I want to use for making collections. It would be nice to be able to view my library sorted in chronological order by when I acquired each resource. That way I can continue focusing on familiarizing myself more with the more recently purchased books. Can't do that now the way tags currently work. Well, I can group by tag, and that is sort of what I want, but then I've got to expand each date to see what items I bought on that date. And there's all the other clutter and redundancy since there's a group for each tag I've used.

Rosie, I'm replying to this partly to bump the thread in order to revive interest in it. I would actually like to know who is interested in this suggestion. I don't expect it will appear necessary to the majority of users, but I would like to exchange ideas with those whom it does interest.

David P. Moore

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/187894#Comment_187894

Jonathan, I'm hanging around, too. I think it would be great to work with Logos to address these issues.

Jonathan Burke

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/187921#Comment_187921

David, you have email.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/187894#Comment_187894

Jonathan Burke said:

It would be nice to be able to view my library sorted in chronological order by when I acquired each resource. That way I can continue focusing on familiarizing myself more with the more recently purchased books.

EDIT: the quote is Rosie's!

The 4.2 Beta has introduced a field called Last Updated which will allow you to do that (but you have to distinguish a newly purchased resource from an updated one).

I have been able to remove three of my tags with the recent rationalisation of resource language in Subjects + introduction of type:lexicon and type:encyclopedia to distinguish the former type:dictionary resources. Otherwise, I was heading down the route of tag overload for the purpose of defining collections. I would support one additional user-defined field, though.

Jonathan Burke

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/188087#Comment_188087

That's actually Rosie's post Dave, but thanks for the tip about the new field. I'm going to revisit my dictionaries and encyclopedias collection to see how I can improve the rule on the basis of the new tag types.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/188091#Comment_188091

Jonathan Burke said:

That's actually Rosie's post Dave

It came from your post but I'm not sure how the attribution was messed up!