Resource Typing

Is a resource's Type a publisher or author(s)' requirement, choice?

- "All the Altars" is Typed as being a Monograph, but the rest of the series is Bible Commentary.

- "The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews" is Typed monograph; why not a Commentary as its description says, or Bible Commentary?

- If "Isaiah for Everyone" is Bible Commentary, why is "Reading Mark for the first time" a monograph?

- "Testament of the Lord": Why not 'catechism' or Church History?

I ask because, the way I do things with collections Roll Eyes , I prefer as few Types as possible and 'monograph', while accurate, forces more detailed resource characteristic parsing.

(I know, "Testament of the Lord" demonstrates particularly why things fall into Monograph Crying ...)

Win 10 x64 [19042]; i7 7700, 32GB, 2T.
Logos 9.4.0.0009. (w/Verbum hooks.)

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

SineNomine

Is a resource's Type a publisher or author(s)' requirement, choice?

Faithlife determines it. And Faithlife can and will change it if it makes a mistake.

- "All the Altars" is Typed as being a Monograph, but the rest of the series is Bible Commentary.

If you open it, you will see that All the Altars is not a Bible commentary.

- "The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews" is Typed monograph; why not a Commentary as its description says, or Bible Commentary?

Since it is about part of the Bible, it would not be Type:Commentary, which is for commentaries on other texts. I don't have the resource, so I can't explain more than that.

- If "Isaiah for Everyone" is Bible Commentary, why is "Reading Mark for the first time" a monograph?

Because Reading Mark for the First Time is not a Bible commentary. It's about the Gospel of Mark, but it's not actually a commentary on Mark.

- "Testament of the Lord": Why not 'catechism' or Church History?

If you mean LLS:TSTMNTLRDRCHRCH, it would be because it's not a catechism or a work on the history of the c/Church. Most of it is a collection of ancient liturgical texts.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1167337#Comment_1167337

Thanks,

The high level detail in the popup for the All the Altars entries is a Bible reference, and opening each entry, I see that 'all' (?) the persons mentioned and locations are biblical. And looking at the entries in others of the resources, they too seem to deal with the same information and singular source, and in the same ways.

Thanks re "The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews"; yes, I included Commentary for the sake options; Bible Commentary is more consistent with the resource.

Re "Testament of the Lord" (yes, LLS:TSTMNTLRDRCHRCH), its is the least certain of the typologies here for me, as I suggested with "Testament of the Lord" demonstrates particularly why things fall into Monograph".

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1167366#Comment_1167366

The high level detail in the popup for the All the Altars entries is a Bible reference, and opening each entry, I see that 'all' (?) the persons mentioned and locations are biblical. And looking at the entries in others of the resources, they too seem to deal with the same information and singular source, and in the same ways.

Check the Information page (accessible from the panel menu) under Indexes. It has English Headwords but it has to include Bible to be a commentary

Thanks re "The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews"; yes, I included Commentary for the sake options; Bible Commentary is more consistent with the resource.

Again, it has to be indexed by Bible to be a commentary. If it is "The Teaching of.." it will usually be describing what is taught under various headings/topics rather than bible chapters/verses.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1167366#Comment_1167366

All the Altars is not a commentary because the structure of the data doesn't warrant it. A single listing of an altar may have myriad references, and that doesn't bode well for organizing like a commentary.

Commentaries run basically in sequential order through a text.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1167382#Comment_1167382

Thank you David, MJ, Rick.

Then its not being assigned 'Bible' is more significant, despite that all its references are to biblical text? That it would not exist were the text-ordered entries that reference and clarify individual biblical texts removed?

Yes, its entries are more like extended dictionary entries than verbose 'commentary'; but the content of the resource's entries doesn't seem categorically different from, say, those in ...Covenants or ...Feasts.

Is the difference simply some threshold for the number of intra-biblical cross references, for some of its entries?

Thank you all ... I'll stop running on [:'(]

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1167386#Comment_1167386

Then its not being assigned 'Bible' is more significant, despite that all its references are to biblical text?

The main point is that it is indexed by Headwords and its organisation does not suit bible milestones as per the quote from Rick Brannan (Faithlife) above. And any resource can quote bible references quite freely.

but the content of the resource's entries doesn't seem categorically different from, say, those in ...Covenants or ...Feasts.
Is the difference simply some threshold for the number of intra-biblical cross references,

The covenants can be organised in the order of biblical books/chapters/verses i.e. a covenant is stated in one passage and additional references carry confirmation of it or a reminder of it. I classify it (via My Tags) as Notes because it isn't really commenting on the text!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1167481#Comment_1167481

Thanks Dave.