Sorry, I forgot to give myself I link to your post for this.
I would like to see a new category of "Apologetics and Polemics" which I believe requires the dual name because of the differences of understanding of what constitutes apologetics.
Do you mean a new "type"? Although I like the general idea, I see some problems. "Apologetics nad Polemics" is a topical type, whereas all (or most) of the other existing types are library types. So there's a big overlap with other types.
For example, there are dictionaries on apologetics (there's one in your list), journals of apologetics (easily found in Logos), the Apologetics Study Bible, and even a systematic theology with focus on apologetics (by Norman Geisler). Such works would then belong into two types.
What I think we actually need is a new field "topical type" or similar, apart from the current "type". One of those would be "Apologetics and Polemics", another one "Counselling", another one "Ministry", another one "Leadership", another one "Archaeology" etc. And every resource would go into one library type (dictionary, systematic theology, journal etc.) and in one topical type (as defined above). A setup like that would enable us to select resources on a very granular level right out of the box.
I agree with Jan. This seems like a "Subject" or a tag rather than a Library Type.
I believe Subject provides this, though the categories there are inconsistently applied. Perhaps there needs to be a new field like "topical type" or "category" or some such. But there is overlap among these categories too, and each individual might categorize things differently. There is overlap between "Ministry" and both "Counseling" and "Leadership". So, like Subject, it would be a field that could have multiple values. But it would take eons to get it set up such that all existing books in the Logos catalogue had sufficient data filled in to be useful.
Since tagging already gives us the kind of granularity you desire, but the bottleneck is getting your whole library tagged well...
...what I propose instead is a new feature, which I'll call Tagging Scripts. This would be an automated way of going through your library and tagging a whole list of books with a given tag. Users could create tagging scripts to share with each other. And Faithlife could create tagging scripts that users could download. For example, tag all your Apologetics and Polemics books easily by downloading one script called, say apol-polem.lts (LTS = Logos Tagging Script), and running it. You'd run these scripts from within the desktop app. There could be a Faithlife group for sharing LTS files. New Libraries would come with a whole set of scripts for tagging your library.
Tagging is a task that is very labor intensive, every single user has to do to get the most out of Logos, and most people don't do sufficiently. (I gave up long ago, as it was impossible to keep up with it.) So this feature would be a huge win for users, and would make Logos so much more useful.
I see several of the current types as subject/topics as well ... but it's not worth my time to push.
I like the general idea, I see some problems. "Apologetics nad Polemics" is a topical type, whereas all (or most) of the other existing types are library types. So there's a big overlap with other types.
There is "Apologetics" and there is "Polemics", but not "Apologetics and Polemics" as a Type. Currently, Apologetics is covered by Type Study Bible (?), Encyclopedia, Handbook, and Monograph. Type Handbook is overloaded with topics and does not have a unifying Index, unlike Encyclopedia where 5 are about Apologetics. So a type "Apologetics" (Christian!) would unload Encyclopedia (mainly "Bible Dictionaries") and Handbook. It should not be burdened with Polemics.
There is "Apologetics" and there is "Polemics", but not "Apologetics and Polemics" as a Type.
In American Evangelical circles and perhaps other groups, it appears that polemics is a subfield of apologetics -- at least in the view of some very respectable dictionaries. That is why I suggested that they be treated as a unit.
Agreed. However:
I'm in the same boat. For proper tagging, one needs to understand to a certain degree what each and every book in the library is about. I'm not doing it any longer either.
Master degrees in library science definitely don't exist for no reason...
Sorry, I really didn't mean to push - just to improve an idea that I already find terrific.
But now it seems they are using it for categorizing Monographs (Church History).
That is actually a very good example where this overlap is already happening. Many works on church history are not configured as type church history because they're already part of a different category.
My suspicion is that the Factbook will utilize the more specific divisions.
Again, generally a great way of moving forward. However..... there are many e-books categorized with the new types. Unless the AI behind the new factbook is super clever, the lack of tagging might cause weird outcomes.
I would also like to see an apologetics type, but I would leave it at "Type:Apologetics" and just include polemics in it, because the longer type would be cumbersome in the Library and I fear it would likely confuse people.
