Sort library by canonical order?

Ben

When I'm looking at my commentaries, I'd really like to be able to sort them by canonical order (don't care Protestant/Catholic/Jewish) in order to see where my gaps are. Sure, I can search just for Genesis or Ezekiel commentaries with "Title:"  but doing that for all 66 books is time consuming.

DMB

Re-title-ing and tagging my commentaries and almost-commentaries was one of the smartest things I did, at Logos4.  Let's see; that's 12 years ago?

Even buying some Labor Day books reminded me, i had major holes in my NT Apocrypha (I number the canon, apocrypha's, and pseudo's).  Just typing Comm65 brings up all my resources on Jude .. even the one on Jesus' two brothers. Or typing CommAYB brings up Anchor Yale, and not just the commentary ... any Bible-book specific from AY.

I've never understood why the library doesn't support the Bible books (probably because it's Logos 'Bible' Software).  Agreed 'canon', but probably someone from a local Bellingham church (I'm sure they have one) could bring in their Bible, or maybe just Xerox the table of contents, to help out. Yes, being catty.  

Then there's the subject column ... they made it painfully egregious to type 'Bible. N.T. James. Commentaries.'  (I hope I got that right ... those periods are critical).  Who in ones wildest imagination, thought that up??

NB.Mick

When I'm looking at my commentaries, I'd really like to be able to sort them by canonical order (don't care Protestant/Catholic/Jewish) in order to see where my gaps are.

I tagged all of my commentaries with a tag resembling the canonical number as Logos uses it and as seen at e.g. https://wiki.logos.com/Canonical_Commentary_Collections 

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1222798#Comment_1222798

Who in ones wildest imagination, thought that up??

Publishers and librarians especially Library of Congress see Library of Congress Subject Headings - LC Linked Data Service: Authorities and Vocabularies | Library of Congress (loc.gov)

Asking a rhetorical question doesn't prohibit an answer ... simply indicates none is expected. [:P]

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1222822#Comment_1222822

Asking a rhetorical question doesn't prohibit an answer ... simply indicates none is expected. 

True.  But the interface between 'us' (that'd be inside the company), and 'them' (customers, etc) has always been a mystery (including the company I worked for).  The 'us' had far more to do with 'us', than we did with 'them'.  Marketing dealt with 'them'.

So, in this case I do wonder 'who'?  It seems to me, the 'us's had a subject field in their system, delimited by periods. And dumped the contents into the 'them' world. Thinking? What?  It's heavily delimited, so the rollups are tiny.  Obnoxious to type.

I remember when the 'them's requested subjects.

Dave Hooton

Sure, I can search just for Genesis or Ezekiel commentaries with "Title:"  but doing that for all 66 books is time consuming.

And title has many formats  like "Letters of Peter",  "Epistles of St. Peter", "I & II Peter". It won't be possible to sort by canonical order because one volume could support the letters of Peter, John and Jude. If that 'looks' canonical, OT volumes of Prophets are worse.

So try something simple like  subj:1-peter type:commentary. Use the hyphen - for spaces, use 1,2,or 3 for the book number and use as much of the full book name as necessary e.g. Thess, Rev, Hab. The number of books will tell the tale of "gaps", but beware of multiple-volumes for books like Matthew, Genesis, Psalms and duplicates in a Series. A brief survey shows I have around 23-26 of most books and 30+ of books I concentrate on (44 for Rev).