Which one of these Collections Rules is Better?
Comments
-
David Bailey said:
The simple rule, however, does not capture the 1 and 2 volume bible commentaries that may exist in one's library;
For single volume commentaries try
type:commentary subject:bible-commentaries
For single volume NT commentaries, try
type:commentary subject:N.T.commentaries
(it should include the NT volume of the two-volume EBC - which should delineate its bible books)
For both together:
type:commentary subject:(N.T.commentaries, bible-commentaries)
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Dave Hooton said:
For single volume commentaries try
type:commentary subject:bible-commentaries
There are some single volume bible commentaries that fall outside this subject e.g. bible-handbooks, bible-outlines, bible-antiquities, bible-introductions, bible-criticism but I don't rate any of these as commentaries because they fit the description! Logos don't agree with me, so they are falling down on their standards for commentary metadata as they also apply those subjects to non-commentary types like monographs, and bible notes.
Dave Hooton said:For single volume NT commentaries, try
type:commentary subject:N.T.commentaries
Likewise, some N.T. single volume bible commentaries fall outside this subject e.g. N.T.Criticism, N.T.English and the same applies to O.T. single volume commentaries e.g. O.T.Historical.
Exceptions can easily be catered for in each of the above cases, and I will submit a generic case for Logos to fix their metadata.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Based on the feedback in this thread, I've modified my collection rule for the Gospel of John. Use this rule if you want to find all commentaries and monographs that pertain to or discuss John's Gospel. In my case, so far, there were two false positives, which can be easily removed: 1) doctrinal discussions in Calvin: Commentaries and 2) Carson's New Testament Commentary Survey.
Collection Rule:
(type:commentary,monograph; subject:n.t.john, subject:bible--commentaries,n.t.commentaries)-(series:"preacher's commentary","word biblical")
If you don't want monographs, just remove it from the rule above.
David
Edit: Because of the series, you will need to add back these two resources (if you have them in your library): WBC volume 36 and Preacher's Commentary volume 27
0 -
David Bailey said:
Collection Rule:
(type:commentary,monograph; subject:n.t.john, subject:bible--commentaries,n.t.commentaries)-(series:"preacher's commentary","word biblical")
A more compact/correct expression is:-
type:(commentary, monograph) subject:(n.t.john, bible--commentaries, n.t.commentaries) -series:("preacher's commentary","word biblical")
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Personally dreaming of wider library filter box
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
Dave Hooton said:Dave Hooton said:
For single volume commentaries try
type:commentary subject:bible-commentaries
There are some single volume bible commentaries that fall outside this subject e.g. bible-handbooks, bible-outlines, bible-antiquities, bible-introductions, bible-criticism but I don't rate any of these as commentaries because they fit the description! Logos don't agree with me, so they are falling down on their standards for commentary metadata as they also apply those subjects to non-commentary types like monographs, and bible notes.
Dave Hooton said:For single volume NT commentaries, try
type:commentary subject:N.T.commentaries
Likewise, some N.T. single volume bible commentaries fall outside this subject e.g. N.T.Criticism, N.T.English and the same applies to O.T. single volume commentaries e.g. O.T.Historical.
Exceptions can easily be catered for in each of the above cases, and I will submit a generic case for Logos to fix their metadata.
Dave,
maybe I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that someone from Logos stated that these subjects are the "official" ones that the publishers provided to the national library catalog (or whatever it's called) and can't / won't be changed since they are the ones printed in paper books and under which the respective books are filed in every library. Or so. So, basically, unless Logos made an error by inputting them different to the publisher's original, they won't change them. I hope for a better outcome, though.
Aside: This again may touch the philosophical discussion whether Logos resources are "facsimile-like" representation of printed books including all their errors (even though these errors become a much different quality in a research software) or functional representions. Never mind.
Mick
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
NB.Mick said:
maybe I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that someone from Logos stated that these subjects are the "official" ones that the publishers provided to the national library catalog (or whatever it's called) and can't / won't be changed
That used to be the case, but as you can see at http://community.logos.com/forums/p/73354/511749.aspx#511749, they seem to have abandoned that approach in favour of consistency.
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
NB.Mick said:
maybe I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that someone from Logos stated that these subjects are the "official" ones that the publishers provided to the national library catalog (or whatever it's called) and can't / won't be changed since they are the ones printed in paper books and under which the respective books are filed in every library.
As Logos insist that they are commentaries (type:"Bible Commentary") then they need to be discovered as such via their Subject! They can keep the current designation when making the changes, but it is more applicable to monographs.
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0
said: