PBB links question

I have begun work on the Baltimore Catechism which comes in 4 flavors: elementary, standard, older students and teachers' editions. These are linked by lesson and question number. What is required to recreate links by lesson/question so that the resources will scroll together?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Mark Barnes

This is an important question, but I think technically extremely difficult for Logos to give us. The problem is that each the different referencing systems in Logos require their own datatypes. These datatypes are defined in Logos itself, not in the resource. It's hard therefore to see how Logos could allow us to create datatypes without a major re-architecturing of how Logos works.

My proposed solution is that Logos create some generic datatypes that we could use in our resources. It's the penultimate entry in my priority list. But even there, there are two problems. First, so far as I can see, is that Logos stores most datatypes internally as hierarchical numbers, and then has a lookup table (often multiple lookup tables with some additional logic) to convert that to a human readable format. Second, there would be significant potential for datatype clashes between resources. The second problem could be resolved by Logos automatically creating datatypes for PBBs that demanded them, but the first problem is more difficult I suspect.

Ultimately I'd like to see us being able to add/submit custom datatypes by having Logos publish its XML specification for datatypes, but I think that's unlikely, and would be beyond most PBBers.

So to answer your question as to what is required: a lot!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/257523#Comment_257523

True but ...

If Logos did things MY way[;)] they would recognize the value being able to do a parallel catechism much as one does a parallel Bible. At this point Logos has (at least):

Luther's Catechisms (large and small)
Westminster Catechism (long and short)
Spurgeon's catechism - at least one
Bunyan's catechism
Council of Trent Catechism
Anglican catechism(s) coming in the BCP collection
Racovian (and possible more) in the Schaff collection

In short, it is reaching the point where Logos should be looking into making Catechisms into their own resource type with characteristics appropriate to the class. And since I have a collection of nearly 20 Baptist catechisms, it seems as if it falls within Logos' core constituency. I just want to get ahead of the curve.

The same type of issue ought to raise it's head on the publication of resources such as the BCP and Ancient Liturgies (in customer pricing).

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/257611#Comment_257611

they would recognize the value being able to do a parallel catechism much as one does a parallel Bible.

I'm not disputing that a "Type" of Catechism might be useful, but truthfully, most types don't matter all that much in Logos. There's no essential difference between a monograph, Bible, journal, calendar devotional or so on. Anything with a .logos4 extension is treated pretty much the same way. So I can't see there being any significant benefit in a new catechism type.

Anyway, the problem is not resource types, but datatypes. Regardless of the resource types, each catechism would need it's own datatype, because each catechism has its own unique structure. It's different from Bibles, because all Bibles follow the same structure: book chapter:verse. There are a few small differences between them (some have more books than others, or the books might be in a different order), but they're essentially the same, so can share the same datatype. Catechisms aren't the same, so each would need it's own datatype. Moreover, even if they used the same type of structure, you wouldn't want Luther's 3.2 to align with Westminster 3.2, it just doesn't work like that.

The best you could do would be to tag for topics (which you can do already). So that when you were looking at Luther's statements on (e.g.) Creation, it would keep up with WSC's statement, and so on.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/257611#Comment_257611

If Logos did things MY way they would recognize the value being able to do a parallel catechism much as one does a parallel Bible.

But do different catechisms have a common addressing scheme? You can do parallel Bibles because they are all addressed by Book, chapter, and verse. Even though the books and versification differ somewhat from canon to canon, they have enough overlap that it's possible to run them in parallel.

I suspect this is not the case with catechisms. The questions and answers each one employs will vary widely depending on how the publishing body chose to organize them and depending on the theology of the particular group that the catechism comes from. Spurgeon's catechism starts with the same question as the Westminster ones ("What is the chief end of man?") but from there they diverge. The Catechism of the Council of Trent isn't even a true question and answer format.

Am I misunderstanding what you mean by a "parallel catechism"?

EDIT: I see that Mark and I were posting similar responses at the same time.

It might be an interesting and useful project for someone to create a parallel catechism (as a single book) which looks at similar questions/topics and how each of the catechisms deal with them. Kind of a catechism harmony, if you will. But to have that be possible automatically through Logos lining up the catechisms in some sort of parallel scheme through a common index seems technically impossible. There just isn't an address scheme that works simultaneously across the different catechisms.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/257617#Comment_257617

Anyway, the problem is not resource types, but datatypes. Regardless of the resource types, each catechism would need it's own datatype, because each catechism has its own unique structure.

I agree that the primary issue is datatypes. However, there are functions in which resource types do matter as I discovered testing the Moravian Watchwords. In the back of my mind I seem to recall a distinction between commentary on every verse vs. selected verses making a difference.

There is a strong commonality in the format of catechisms ... most are linked to articles of a creed, the Lord's Prayer, the 10 Commandments and/or the Beatitudes. Less common is organization by Sacrament.

Moreover, even if they used the same type of structure, you wouldn't want Luther's 3.2 to align with Westminster 3.2, it just doesn't work like that.

You know I would never have thought that.[;)] However, I might think that the portion under the first of the ten commandments, or the last article of the Nicene Creed, or the last phrase of the Lord's Prayer might line up.[8-|]

So that when you were looking at Luther's statements on (e.g.) Creation, it would keep up with WSC's statement, and so on.

This is what I assumed topics and searches would provide

I'm not thinking of anything as complex as the verse mapping that ties the Bibles together - and, as you indicated in a different thread, is needed for the pseudepigraphia to work correctly. But I also don't want to waste my effort selecting/creating topics that don't match those used in the catechisms produced by Logos

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/257624#Comment_257624

It might be an interesting and useful project for someone to create a parallel catechism (as a single book) which looks at similar questions/topics and how each of the catechisms deal with them. Kind of a catechism harmony, if you will.

I have already done so - otherwise I would not have known that the suggestion was a reasonable and useful suggestion. Many catechisms that don't appear to match the scheme of other catechisms actually do so because the base sequences are so logically reasonable or built on patterns well engrained in the Christian psyche.

It may be that the answer is as simple as deciphering the format of the harmonies resource type and building milestones into the resources. But, again, I don't want to set up a model that is incompatible with what Logos does when they see the possibilities.

There just isn't an address scheme that works simultaneously across the different catechisms.

Actually, for many of them there is - see my response to Mark.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/257626#Comment_257626

I'm not thinking of anything as complex as the verse mapping that ties the Bibles together - and, as you indicated in a different thread, is needed for the pseudepigraphia to work correctly. But I also don't want to waste my effort selecting/creating topics that don't match those used in the catechisms produced by Logos

As you know, Logos has shied away from topic tagging in L4, and I can't see it coming back. Biblical P/P/T is it's equivalent, and it's obviously not relevant to this. I therefore don't see how you could match Logos' catechism tagging (because it doesn't have any beyond the standard reference system). If you wanted to create one - and I could see the value in that - you'd have to design your own.

I see no reason why that wouldn't work now, with PBBs as they are. (Just use the topic milestone.)

PS - Your winking smiley made me realise my Luther vs WSC comment sounded patronising. Sorry. Despite how it came across I was quite aware that I was pointing out the obvious, and that you already knew what I was saying.