BUG: Text compare / Notes by Reference / Metadata tagging especially in Classic Commentary bundles

1. Open Text Compare

2. Use selection box --> Series --> The Temple Bible as one translation

3. Choose a couple of other translations that include Tobit

4. Enter Tobit 1

The column from The Temple Bible fails to populate although the text is present in the resource.

I was testing that the items from the Classic Commentary Series that are tagged type:Bible actually behaved as such. Nope/ But it does recognize it has the reference Tobit 1:1-6

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Mark Barnes

The bug is not with the TC tool. The resource isn't marked up as containing Bible text. That means the Bible Text Only filter won't work, and you won't be able to search it in a Bible search.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/535363#Comment_535363

Aw, you gave away the secret Mark [:(]. Am I the only one who thinks that a volume containing only translations of Biblical text that is given the megadata tag Bible and appears as an option in the text comparison drop down box SHOULD be tagged to behave as a Bible? I think it greatly diminishes the value of these resources to not be able to use them as Bible translations. My testing implies that it also extends to notes by reference. (See that note on Tobit 1:2 by reference does not appear in The Temple Bible.)

Maybe we need a new metadata value "sorta-Bible"

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/535372#Comment_535372

Am I the only one who thinks that a volume containing only translations of Biblical text that is given the megadata tag Bible and appears as an option in the text comparison drop down box SHOULD be tagged to behave as a Bible?

Do you mean there are other Bibles that don't have Bible text tagging? That clearly shouldn't be allowed to happen.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/535382#Comment_535382

Do you mean there are other Bibles that don't have Bible text tagging?

Yes - my original post was careful understatement. I haven't checked all that I own (which isn't many) but it appears to generally be true of the Classic Commentary volumes that are tagged as Bibles.

Edit: Test may be flawed ....

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/535372#Comment_535372

Am I the only one who thinks that a volume containing only translations of Biblical text that is given the megadata tag Bible and appears as an option in the text comparison drop down box SHOULD be tagged to behave as a Bible?

Do you mean, just because Tobit was accidentally tagged as type:bible, that the other commentaries in the series should also be tagged as bibles?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/535391#Comment_535391

Do you mean, just because Tobit was accidentally tagged as type:bible,

Accidentally? I have only 6 of 45 sections from Classic Commentaries and 20 or so are tagged as Bibles. Somehow that doesn't strike me as "accidental". These are all tagged as type:Bible lang:English ... I haven't checked original language texts.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/535394#Comment_535394

Accidentally? I have only 2-3 sections from Classic Commentaries and 20 or so are tagged as Bibles. Somehow that doesn't strike me as "accidental".

Then I eagerly await Logos' comments on this 'functional' metadata tagging.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/535403#Comment_535403

Since the real problem has been "outed" before Logos committed itself to any particular corrective course, I have changed the thread's title.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/535394#Comment_535394

I'm struggling to understand the wider point you're making, MJ. I understand there's an error with this particular resource that it's not tagged with the Bible text field. But what's the bigger picture that I'm missing?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/535423#Comment_535423

It's not just the particular resource I used as a test for the first post. The same behavior appears to hold for at least a sizable group of resources. I have not tested enough of the resources to know all the parameters determining the problem but some proportion of the Classic Commentaries and Studies bundles are labeled as Bibles but do not behave as Bibles.

Edit: it may be fewer resources than I first thought given the behavior of the Text Compare when one changes versions.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/535453#Comment_535453

The same behavior appears to hold for at least a sizable group of resources.

I would be good if you could find out what those resources are, and create a new thread which said: "Several Bibles are missing the Bible Text field", and listed them and explained the consequences.

It might be possible to check this by running a Bible search for a word that would definitely be in all the Bibles (a word like 'and' or 'the', rather than 'Jesus' or 'God', to cope 'Bibles' that are only of the book of Esther, for example). A By Title search, compared with the view in your library might let you quickly identify them.

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/535372#Comment_535372

Am I the only one who thinks that a volume containing only translations of Biblical text that is given the megadata tag Bible and appears as an option in the text comparison drop down box SHOULD be tagged to behave as a Bible?

No, I am in agreement that "type:Bible" should mean that the resource behaves as a Bible (Bible Text Only, CBV, Text Comparison, etc.).

These resources are clearly mistagged, and I have reported the problem. I don't know if it will be resolved by removing "type:bible" (easy) or retagging all the Bible text with the "bible" field (hard).

Also, "megadata" is my new favourite word. [:)]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/535577#Comment_535577

Also, "megadata" is my new favourite word.

It's always best to make typos memorable.[:D]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/535516#Comment_535516

It would be good if you could find out what those resources are,

Unfortunately, I own only a small portion of them ... however, if someone wishes to give me a major donation ...

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/535698#Comment_535698

OK. I searched my entire collection of English Bibles, and found all those that haven't had the bible-text field added correctly. They are:

Jastrow, M., Jr. (1920). The Book of Job: Its Origin, Growth and Interpretation, together with a New Translation Based on a Revised Text. Philadelphia; London: J. B. Lippincott Company.
Carey, C. P. (1858). The Book of Job: Text. London: Wertheim, Macintosh, and Hunt.
Neubauer, A. (Ed.). (1878). The Book of Tobit. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
Fairweather, W. (Ed.). (1903). The First & Second Books of the Maccabees. London; Philadelphia: J. M. Dent & Company; J. B. Lippincott Company.
Jebb, J. (1846). A Literal Translation of the Book of Psalms (Vol. 1). London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans.
Sayce, A. H. (Ed.). (1903). Tobit and the Babylonian Apocryphal Writings. London; Philadelphia: J. M. Dent & Co.; J. B. Lippincott Co.
Gaster, M. (1897). Two Unknown Hebrew Versions of Tobit. London: Harrison and Sons.
Stevenson, W. B. (Ed.). (1903). Wisdom and the Jewish Apocryphal Writings. London; Philadelphia: J. M. Dent & Co.; J. B. Lippincott Co.

This represents about 6% of my English Bibles. I have the entire classic commentary collection, so you can assume that if a Bible is not listed here, then it's OK.

Bradley, could you add these to your earlier report, please. Thanks.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/535711#Comment_535711

Thank you Mark.