Announcement: Resource Type Change--Dictionary, Encyclopedia, Lexicon

Today, Logos will be introducing two new resource types in Logos 4 to better handle different kinds of "dictionary"-like resources.

Resources in your library that currently have the type "Dictionary" will be automatically re-categorized via the metadata service into three more specific types:

Dictionary
Modern language dictionary. These resources typically have short definitions for the individual headwords, and the headwords cover a large percentage of the unique words in the language.
Examples: Merriam-Webster's, Collins Concise Dictionary

Lexicon
Ancient language dictionary. These resources may have short definitions or long sections on the etymology or usage of each word. The headwords are in an ancient language and typically cover a large percentage of the unique words in that language.
Examples: BDAG, HALOT
(Note also: Subject fields for lexicons have been reviewed to make sure they specify the language(s) covered and the language the resource is in. E.g. "Hebrew language--Dictionaries--English".)

Encyclopedia
Encyclopedic dictionary. These resources typically have long articles, and may only have a few hundred or thousand headwords. There is often a high degree of overlap with Bible Knowledgebase/Logos Controlled Vocabulary concepts (though not always, e.g., Dictionary of Christianity in America).
Examples: Harper's Bible Dictionary, Anchor Bible Dictionary, Dictionary of Christianity in America

How This Will Affect Users:
User collections based on the "Dictionary" type may need to be revised.
Lookups of Parallel Resources will now be based (by default) on the new types.
Note: This change does not affect Libronix

We expect to complete the changes this morning. If you're using Logos "online", you should see the results immediately.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

TCBlack

Wow, thanks Louis!

David Bailey

Thanks for the information. I had to re-start Logos 4 to see the new resource structure. I'm a bit confused about the change. The library categorization has the type Lexicon, Encyclopedia, and Dictionary, with many resources in them. But the resources themselves still reflect the original types. For example, see the figure, where many resources still have encyclopedia as Type, but under the Library category Dictionary:

Todd Phillips

We expect to complete the changes this morning. If you're using Logos "online", you should see the results immediately.

Thanks! We now have functional Encyclopedia of Christianity resources! Their types have been fixed:

And they now show up in the look-ups:

Todd Phillips

For example, see the figure, where many resources still have encyclopedia as Type, but under the Library category Dictionary:

David, I'm not having your problem:

Maybe another restart would fix it?

David Bailey

Maybe another restart would fix it?

Yes, I believe that fixed it. But the resource called Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Quotations is still of type Monograph under the category Monograph.

Mark Smith

This is good news. It will help with forming collections.

I have one of the new categories so far: Encyclopedia. Missing Lexicon. Will wait.

Floyd Johnson

[EDIT]

I also had to do a second restart to get thing straightened out. Both Encyclopedias and Dictionaries were mislabeled until I did the restart.

Mark Smith

But the resource called Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Quotations is still of type Monograph under the category Monograph.

This is one we could disagree over. Dictionary in the name, but it doesn't serve as a dictionary, therefore a monograph. It is arranged by topic alphabetically but only in that way resembles a dictionary. It doesn't meet the criteria Louis listed for dictionary.

Dictionary
Modern language dictionary. These
resources typically have short definitions for the individual headwords,
and the headwords cover a large percentage of the unique words in the
language.
Examples: Merriam-Webster's, Collins Concise Dictionary

Paul M

This is good news. It will help with forming collections.

I have one of the new categories so far: Encyclopedia. Missing Lexicon. Will wait.

Works well for me over here, I appear to have got all the new categorizations which is great. Looks good over here!

TCBlack

A few more questions.... (issues?)

A Dictionary of Biblical tradition in English Literature should probably be encyclopedia, but is monograph.
The Exhaustive Dictionary of Bible Names has the short entries of a dictionary but is classed as encyclopedia.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Quotationsi is classed as a monograph but is encyclopedic in character.
The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology is likewise classed as an encyclopedia but is dictionary in character.

Mark Smith

I also had to do a second restart to get thing straightened out. Both Encyclopedias and Dictionaries were mislabeled until I did the restart.

Yep. Two restarts got them sorted out. I'll redefine my collections now.

Mark Smith

A few more questions.... (issues?)

A Dictionary of Biblical tradition in English Literature should probably be encyclopedia, but is monograph.

The Exhaustive Dictionary of Bible Names has the short entries of a dictionary but is classed as encyclopedia.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Quotationsi is classed as a monograph but is encyclopedic in character.

The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology is likewise classed as an encyclopedia but is dictionary in character.

I think rereading the definition of Dictionary says the ones you want to classify that way don't fit into that definition. As I replied to David Baily I don't think any of the categories applies to the Dictionary of Quotations. I don't have your first and last on the list so can't comment about where they ought to be. Sounds like you are right about the first one, though.

Where's the uber-Librarian when he/she is needed? This isn't easy.

Louis St. Hilaire

[quote]Thanks for the information. I had to re-start Logos 4 to see the new resource structure. I'm a bit confused about the change. The library categorization has the type Lexicon, Encyclopedia, and Dictionary, with many resources in them. But the resources themselves still reflect the original types. For example, see the figure, where many resources still have encyclopedia as Type, but under the Library category Dictionary:

I also observed this, but, as noted, it seems to go away once the library catolog update is complete.

A Dictionary of Biblical tradition in English Literature should probably be encyclopedia, but is monograph.

I just caught and corrected this. You should see the correct type now.

The Exhaustive Dictionary of Bible Names has the short entries of a dictionary but is classed as encyclopedia.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Quotationsi is classed as a monograph but is encyclopedic in character.
The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology is likewise classed as an encyclopedia but is dictionary in character.

There always end up being some borderline cases in any classification. We went with "Encyclopedia" for the Dictionary of Bible Names and The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology on the grounds of what they cover, even though the entries are short.

The Dictionary of Quotations is a bit of an oddball, as Mark noted. I suppose it could go in Encyclopedia--using that category as a catch-all--but I think it really would belong better classified with things like topically arranged collections of illustrations. As you're probably aware, the work we're doing on "topic"-like things (headwords/LCV/Biblical People/Places/Things) is ongoing, I'll look into where we're going with these kinds of resources.

Mark Smith

I think it really would belong better classified with things like topically arranged collections of illustrations.

I agree with this. Illustrations and quotations are something that ought to be differentiated from monograph.

I also think that there are Bible reference topical-type resources that should eventually be given their own type. Nave's, Elwell's Topical Analysis, Nelsons' Topical Index, The MacArthur Topical Bible, New Topical Textbook, Collin's Thesaurus of the Bible, Where to Find It in the Bible, and The Zondervan Dictionary of Bible Themes would all fit this sort of category. Call them Bible Topic or something like that.

It is nice to know some progress in being made in this area. It will make using Logos easier.

Jerry M

Wow! Look at all the encyclopedias.

TCBlack

There always end up being some borderline cases in any classification.

That is an understatement. :-) Thanks Louis!

Milford Charles Murray

That is sooooo smooooth! *smile*

Frankly, I really like "cloud computering"!

I watched Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary change to "encyclopedia" right before my eyes. Almost, as they (whoever they is!) used to say -- in living colour!

Thank you, Louis and Logos!

Peace to all

Mark Smith

I noticed after this changeover that the parallel resource associations for my Greek lexicons virtually popped up rather than grinding away for awhile. Very nice.

Simon’s Brother

Today, Logos will be introducing two new resource types in Logos 4 to better handle different kinds of "dictionary"-like resources.

Resources in your library that currently have the type "Dictionary" will be automatically re-categorized via the metadata service into three more specific types:

We expect to complete the changes this morning. If you're using Logos "online", you should see the results immediately.

Thanks for the work and thought put into this..

Friedrich

terrific! Thank you, Louis and team!

Jeremy

All these changes occurred without any updates or resource updates?

Simon’s Brother

All these changes occurred without any updates or resource updates?

Logos 4 is database driven, so metadata can be stored separate to the content (i.e. resource files) and updates to metadata pushed out seamlessly.

Jeremy

For some reason when I do an exegetical study, some words populate with the full set of parallel resources, but others don't.

Charlene

Super! Thanks, Logos!

Dave Hooton

The Dictionary of Quotations is a bit of an oddball, as Mark noted. I suppose it could go in Encyclopedia--using that category as a catch-all--but I think it really would belong better classified with things like topically arranged collections of illustrations.

Agree. A Dictionary has a definition which Quotations are definitely not. At the moment all my books about Illustrations and Quotations are type:monograph. An Illustrated history of the holy bible (GS_kittohistory) is a monograph when its cousin An Illustrated history of the holy bible (ILLHISTBBL) is type:Media Collection - both apparently compiled by J Kitto. With similar descriptions and different contents it would help if these books were rationalised!

Mike S.

Today, Logos will be introducing two new resource types in Logos 4 to better handle different kinds of "dictionary"-like resources.
...
We expect to complete the changes this morning. If you're using Logos "online", you should see the results immediately.

Update appears to already be in Mac SR version.

fgh

Dictionary
Modern language dictionary. These resources typically have short definitions for the individual headwords, and the headwords cover a large percentage of the unique words in the language.
Examples: Merriam-Webster's, Collins Concise Dictionary

Lexicon
Ancient language dictionary. These resources may have short definitions or long sections on the etymology or usage of each word. The headwords are in an ancient language and typically cover a large percentage of the unique words in that language.
Examples: BDAG, HALOT
(Note also: Subject fields for lexicons have been reviewed to make sure they specify the language(s) covered and the language the resource is in. E.g. "Hebrew language--Dictionaries--English".)

Encyclopedia
Encyclopedic dictionary. These resources typically have long articles, and may only have a few hundred or thousand headwords. There is often a high degree of overlap with Bible Knowledgebase/Logos Controlled Vocabulary concepts (though not always, e.g., Dictionary of Christianity in America).
Examples: Harper's Bible Dictionary, Anchor Bible Dictionary, Dictionary of Christianity in America

For the sake of clarity and completeness, maybe you could also provide your/Logos' definition of 'Thesaurus'? It seems to be a similar category that should also be taken into account when classifying.

Also some stufff I noted while making my collections last week (a few others seem to have disappeared since then, so you're obviously working on it):

Building your New Testament Greek Vocabulary is listed as a lexicon, but Building Your Biblical Hebrew Vocabulary as a monograph.
Introduction to Aramaic is listed as a grammar, Introduction to Ecclesiastical Latin as a Monograph.
One of Nunn's Greek books is listed as a grammar, two as monographs, and there were plenty of other grammatical works among the monographs as well. Now, I haven't looked at all (or any, really…) of these books in detail, so I can't say exactly what they are, but if they don't qualify as grammars, it would be helpful to have another category with 'gramma-something' in the title. I at least like to have all such resources in one collection, and writing long strings of text with 'synta morph analy diagram clause' to catch them all is unnecessarily complicated…
I would also appreciate if dictionaries, lexicons, grammars, and the like, were listed as lang:greek/hebrew/etc, and not just English. Title:greek will never find a Greek/Swedish lexicon, if there ever is one; lang:greek would. And it catches stuff like the TDNT, which doesn't have the word 'Greek' in the title.
Torrey is listed as both 'R.A.', and 'R. A.' Tischendorf is listed as both 'Constantin von' and 'Constantinus'. And, unless you've already fixed it, some guy I can't now remember is listed as both 'F.A' and 'F.A.'.
Browne, author of The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, seems to have no first name.
And if Good Things Come in Small Groups is indeed written in Afrikaans, my Afrikaans must be a great deal better than I thought it was…[:)]

Rosie Perera

As this thread is likely to soon get buried again, I'd encourage everyone from here on out to get back to the standard place for reporting metadata problems: http://wiki.logos.com/Metadata_correction_proposals (it's the top link under Bugs on the right sidebar of the wiki front page).

Louis St. Hilaire

Dave, William, fgh:

We'll have to look closer at all of these, but my initial guess is that some (or all) of the cases you mention are simply mis-classified.

I would also appreciate if dictionaries, lexicons, grammars, and the like, were listed as lang:greek/hebrew/etc, and not just English. Title:greek will never find a Greek/Swedish lexicon, if there ever is one; lang:greek would. And it catches stuff like the TDNT, which doesn't have the word 'Greek' in the title.
Torrey is listed as both 'R.A.', and 'R. A.' Tischendorf is listed as both 'Constantin von' and 'Constantinus'. And, unless you've already fixed it, some guy I can't now remember is listed as both 'F.A' and 'F.A.'.
Browne, author of The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, seems to have no first name.

We use the Language field for the language the resource is in rather than the language the resource covers. You should be able to find all Greek lexicons with "type:lexicon subject:Greek language". We made sure that all Lexicons have an appropriate subject of this form, but I'll put a review of the subjects for Grammars on our to do list.

We also already have some standardization and clean up in the works for Author and Publisher fields, but, as Rosie mentions, the best thing is to make sure these get posted on http://wiki.logos.com/Metadata_correction_proposals.

Simon’s Brother

You should be able to find all Greek lexicons with "type:lexicon subject:Greek language". We made sure that all Lexicons have an appropriate subject of this form, but I'll put a review of the subjects for Grammars on our to do list.

Thanks for doing this and it would be great to see it done for grammars. I too found the Language field a little unhelpful, thanks for explaining why it is, the way it is, rather than what I would have expected.

T Gerold Castle

Are these changes for Mac too? I haven't noticed a difference in my library.

Anonymous

Exhaustive Dictionary of Biblical Names doesn't cover a significant portion of a language's vocabulary, so Encylopedia seems more appropriate, even though the entries are short.

Topically organized works like Dictionaries of Quotations, or Topical Bibles are definately more Encylopedia than Dictionary/Lexicon as those terms were defined above, but aren't really what we think of when we think of Encylopedia, as each entry is actually an anthology rather than an original essay on the headword. But is it really worth splitting distinctions to create a separate category for them?

I would be inclined to lump them under Encylopedia. I definately don't think Monograph is appropriate. I'd rather go ahead and have a "Topical Anthology" category instead of that.

MJ. Smith

Exhaustive Dictionary of Biblical Names doesn't cover a significant portion of a language's vocabulary, so Encylopedia seems more appropriate, even though the entries are short.

I would put these as dictionaries although I see your point ... but I do distinguish between language dictionaries and Bible dictionaries.

Jarred Edgecombe

my Greek lexicons virtually popped up

Hey Mark I like the play on words.

Jarred

Mark Barnes

I really support these changes, though I'm disappointed they weren't publicised more clearly. I was away on holiday when this was announced, and spent ages trying to work out why large chunks of my collections weren't working properly any more. In my opinion this change should have been notified at least on the blog, and preferably also through the "My Messages" feature in Logos, to make sure everyone knew.

Messing with metadata affects user-created content, so I think Logos should be careful in making changes. (Perhaps the ideal would be a message that said when books have moved in/out of collections due to a metadata change.)

Mark Barnes

Here's another 'edge-case', the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. It's classified as an encyclopaedia, but although it's arranged first by English themes, all the main indexing is by Greek headwords. So it should be a lexicon in my view.

Mark Barnes

You should be able to find all Greek lexicons with "type:lexicon subject:Greek language"

This syntax is slightly incorrect. It should be type:lexicon subject:"Greek language" (note the quotes).

Dave Hooton

This syntax is slightly incorrect. It should be type:lexicon subject:"Greek language" (note the quotes).

There is going to be an lot of confusion over the language of a resource for classification purposes. For example:

with lexicons you must use subject:greek because they are all lang:English and the same lexicon* could also have subject:hebrew (it isn't essential to use subject:"Greek language").
with bibles you can use lang:English or subject:English, except that some bibles** are missing the Subject information and it is more accurate to use lang:English or lang:Greek.

* some lexicons could be missing subject:Aramaic when they definitely cover Hebrew. The Abridged and Enhanced BDB could be some of those?

** I've added the needed corrections to the wiki