nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Metadata Suggestion: Original Publication Date

Mitchell

While the effort to add this would be significant, I think it would be very useful for Logos to include the original publication date, or perhaps date of authorship, of a book, rather than the publication of the edition digitized or created by Logos. For example, the publication date for "Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners" is 1995, which is not particularly helpful when I want to search 17th century works.

This could, of course, get complicated when the original publication or authorship date is disputed or unknown, but if the feature is useful enough I'm sure systems could be devised to account for such variances.

Would anyone else find this as helpful as I would?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Mark Smith

Would anyone else find this as helpful as I would?

Some would as this has been brought up before, although I couldn't find the thread or threads that have mentioned this before. Someone wanted to create collections based on the original publication date as I recall. Maybe someone can locate the thread for you. I couldn't find a Uservoice suggestion on this, so you might start one.

fgh

I think it would be very useful for Logos to include the original publication date, or perhaps date of authorship, of a book, rather than the publication of the edition digitized or created by Logos.

There already are two columns in the library: one for the publication date of the book behind the electronic file, and one for the electronic publication date.

For example, the publication date for "Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners" is 1995, which is not particularly helpful when I want to search 17th century works.

Since they've used a public domain source, that clearly is incorrect. I'm guessing it's a relic from a time when they only had one column? If you look at recently published PD works, it doesn't look like that. I suggest reporting it at the Metadata Correction Proposals page on the Wiki, like I did with the Swedish Bibles some days ago (can't link, since the Wiki seems to be down again).

Admittedly, even a correct publication date wouldn't always give you what you want. If Logos has used a 1867 edition of a 1573 book, that column would say 1867, so, yes, a third column would be useful at times. I suspect, though, that the result wouldn't be worth the time and the cost.

Unix

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/376166#Comment_376166

I agree. I would not be eager to pay generally more to Logos just because they would be putting increased effort into correcting and adding (columns on) publication years.

Remember that Logos charges somehow for their efforts.

Admittedly, even a correct publication date wouldn't always give you what you want. If Logos has used a 1867 edition of a 1573 book, that column would say 1867, so, yes, a third column would be useful at times. I suspect, though, that the result wouldn't be worth the time and the cost.