BUG: Why does Logos discriminate against the Lutherans (with regards to the Book of Concord)?

In trying to convert this into a reading cycle:

http://bookofconcord.org/reading-fullyear.php

I discovered that I could not reference specific sections as I can in Catholic documents. At least from Kolb, Robert, Timothy J. Wengert, and Charles P. Arand. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2000.

LLS:16.0.13
2004-06-29T00:42:17Z
KLBCNCRD.lbxlls

I truly trusted that it would be tagged appropriately for reference by Lutherans. I hope this will be fixed ASAP.

Note: Kolb, Robert, Timothy J. Wengert, and Charles P. Arand. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (Latin of Augsburg Confession) Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2000.

LLS:16.0.14
2011-06-28T19:50:47Z
KLBAUGCNF.logos4

appears to be tagged as I would expect.

Find more posts tagged with

Lutheran Products

Comments

NB.Mick

At first I thought this to be very strange, and I don't own the resource to check, but then I seemed to recall that Kolb/Wengert has been discussed earlier in the forum as lacking the BoC datatypes present in all the other editions. Yep. Examples include this thread http://community.logos.com/forums/t/34824.aspx or this http://community.logos.com/forums/t/69709.aspx (note that Gabe is active in the thread, but it centers on resource wishes, not on Ken's first remark). There are more.

If you want to make this reading cycle work, I'd advise you to use another BoC resource than KW, since I don't believe in a fix "soon". In this thread Ken first used links to KW (only page and offset) and later replaced by BoC datatype links which will work in every BoC edition (except KW).

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/566959#Comment_566959

Thanks NB ... unfortunately as a Catholic I don't own multiple editions of the Book of Concord. As it is a fairly recent purchase, I might call Logos and arrange a trade.

Gabe Martini (Faithlife)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/566960#Comment_566960

I did some investigating, and it looks like the tagging work for this has been done, but it somehow never got pushed out to users...

I'm going to go through and test to ensure everything looks right, and an update should push out to all owners of this SKU when ready.

Thanks!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/567075#Comment_567075

Rather than wait, I exchanged books and got Tappert. What would you Logos guys do without me to find the quirks?

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/567075#Comment_567075

I did some investigating, and it looks like the tagging work for this has been done, but it somehow never got pushed out to users...

Out of curiosity, and as a not-quite-subtle suggestion, does Logos have any person/mechanism with the task/job of looking for tagging and similar work that has been done and should be pushed out but was skipped?

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/567443#Comment_567443

The tagged K/W Book of Concord just DLed. Quick look shows it is quite an improvement. Still wish the paragraph numbers were visible in the text like the printed version, but good job!

SDG

Ken McGuire

Gabe Martini (Faithlife)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/567887#Comment_567887

The tagged K/W Book of Concord just DLed. Quick look shows it is quite an improvement. Still wish the paragraph numbers were visible in the text like the printed version, but good job!

SDG

Ken McGuire

Yeah, I noticed it downloaded to my personal account a little while ago, as well. Looks good to me, but if you all notice any other issues, let me know.

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/567890#Comment_567890

Looks good to me, but if you all notice any other issues, let me know.

One frustration I have had with the Logos editions of the Book of Concord is trying to make a reading plan based on it. I would love to be able to make a reading plan of, say, the Large Catechism and create it by just telling Logos "Large Cat." instead of the page numbers. Bible reading plans can be by book easy enough, as can Apostolic Fathers reading plans. But I can't figure out how to do this with the Book of Concord.

SDG

Ken McGuire

Wayne M. Pask

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/567075#Comment_567075

[Y]

Thanks Gabe!

Luke

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/567887#Comment_567887

Now that it has been over a year, has Logos ever added a way to view the paragraph numbers when reading. The only way I can view them seems to be when quoting it, I can't figure out how to get them to display in the normal reading views.

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/825725#Comment_825725

If the active index is the Book of Concord datatype, it will display up in the window - I have circled it in red... It can be a bit clunky, but does work. eg.

Luke

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/825728#Comment_825728

Thanks. That is better than anything else I have seen.

Sakarias Ingolfsson

Sorry for bumping up an old topic, but I do have a question. I have only the Kolb-Wengert-Arand version of the Book of Concord.

LLS:16.0.13
2017-03-07T17:12:32Z
KLBCNCRD.logos4

Even though the issue raised by MJ.Smith seems to have been fixed, I still have a couple of minor problems. At least for Ap IV:122-400 and XII:98-178, the milestones do not fit the surface text. Perhaps this is true for other articles as well. The reason is probably that in some versions of BOC these paragraphs are numbered differently.

Concordia (which I have in print) numbers them as V:1-279 and XIIb:1-81 respectively, including the Kolb-Wengert-Arand scheme in brackets. The Logos version of Kolb-Wengert-Arand, however, tags these articles as III:1-279 and VI:1-81. It seems that this is a blend of two different numbering schemes, and ends up in conflict with previous articles.

Is there anyone, who has this resource on Logos who can check how the other versions of the BOC are tagged in Logos? I would also like to know if the Treatise is referred to as "Smalcald.V" or something else, and whether the articles of the AC are divided into two groups (for exampler AC.I.IV and AC.II.XXIV). or simply referred to by article (i.e. AC.IV and AC.XXIV respectively).

I have a large document with all sorts of notes which I regularly import to Logos through the personal book builder. It is a little bit annoying that these links fail to compile. If this is a problem with the datatype itself, I'll simply drop those links. If it is only a problem with the Kolb-Wengert-Arand version, I will probably consider purchasing a different version of the BOC.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/961087#Comment_961087

Okay, my Apostolic Finnish Lutheran grandmother born in 1885 is not channeling well enough for me to translate "treatise", "AC" etc. but the milestones for Logos are the same across all versions - they are what allows you (among other things) to make all your versions of Luther's catechetical materials scroll together if the material is in the resource ... note one of my 4 resources lacks the Smalcald.

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/961087#Comment_961087

At least for Ap IV:122-400 and XII:98-178, the milestones do not fit the surface text. Perhaps this is true for other articles as well. The reason is probably that in some versions of BOC these paragraphs are numbered differently.

It has been a while since I have dug into the details of the BookofConcord datatype, but from what I recall, how from what I recall, it is as you guess. Historically the Apology in particular has been numbered many different ways. Having tagged many 19th century Lutheran works, I saw that most older works divided articles of the Apology based on, well, the text of the Apology by itself, where Melachthon spends a lot of time on controversial things, and skips what was not controversial. The current standard for citing the Apology, however, numbers the articles based on the Augsburg Confession numbering - except for VII/VIII which is on article in the Apology since it overlaps so much.

Going off memory, just about the first edition that actually numbered paragraphs were the 19th century Mueller German/Latin editions. These paragraph numbers became standard. These paragraph numbers seem to be the root of the Logos BookOfConcord datatype.

Logos has a way to have different mappings in related datatypes. They show this in how they handle the different versification (and sometimes chapters) in Bibles. The thing is that mapping all of this takes time (and money) by trained people. I somehow doubt that the market of Lutherans who would care/notice all the effort it would take to completely rationalize all of this completely would pay for this easily... So we are left with a bit of a kludge. But at least the bad old days when we could not even scroll editions of the Augsburg Confession with each other are over now. It generally works. But it is clunky in the Apology in particular - for historical reasons well beyond Faithlife's control.

That said, similar problems exist in other historical editions of works - eg. classic philosophers, patristics, etc. I hope that as Faithlife does take the time to think through how they will handle all of this consistently as they expand into these works even more.

Sakarias Ingolfsson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/961170#Comment_961170

I apologize for the unexplained shorthand:

AC means Augsburg Confession

The roman numeral refers to the main part of the confession (I or II) and then article number (I-XXVII). The part (I or II) is really not needed, as the article numbers are unique throughout.
The latin numeral refers to paragraph number.

Ap means Apology of the Augsburg Confession

The apology is not divided into two main parts, so there is only the article number.

Treatsie is short for Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope

Maybe my question should have been this: Is the datatype BookOfConcord independent from the specific resources? That is, will the milestones normally be the same? The two last replies (From M.J. Smith and Ken McGuire) seem to suggest this. If this is the case, it actually looks like Logos has created its unique way of reference. Article III is renamed as article VI; The latter half of article IV becomes article III. Article VII/VIII is simply VIII; and the latter half of article XII is now article VI. This is a little strange, as long as it is consistent it can be worked out.

I found a short article in CTQ (Concordia Theological Quarterly) which briefly explains the confusion with the article and pargraph numbers in the Apology. http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/MayesApologyoftheAugsburgConfessionComparisonChart.pdf

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/961250#Comment_961250

Is the datatype BookOfConcord independent from the specific resources?

Short answer: yes
Thanks for the translation of your shorthand.

Sakarias Ingolfsson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/961258#Comment_961258

Ok, so I have been attempting to make an overview over all compileable references to the Book of Concord. I have gathered them into a PBB Word document. 1374.PBB-BOC-References.docx

The datatype seems to be built on the Triglot version. I do not have that version in Logos, but I have consulted the online version (bookofconcord.org) as far as that goes. I also have the Reader's edition (McCain-Engelbrecht) in print, and consulted this one as well.

References that do not appear in the Triglot will not compile in Logos. That makes for some strange results. For example, while Ap:XII:9 as well as Ap:XII:11 do compile, the paragraph between them Ap:XII:10 does not compile. It is not in the Triglot, and hence it does not exist according to Logos. That it does appear in Kolb-Wengert is not their problem ;-).

Some of the references are a little surprising, like the use of 0 in some of them. Some can be written in more than one way as well.

Fore example, BookOfConcord:Large cat.:IV:0:1 can also be written as BookOfConcord:Large cat.:Baptism:0:1

Please download and use as you like, and compare to the different version of the Book Of Concord. When you come a cross errors, I would appreciate if you send them to me.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/973821#Comment_973821

thank you.

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/973821#Comment_973821

Impressive documentation of the Logos BookOfConcord datatype. As you have seen, it is not ideal - and not what I would go with if I were coming up with a data structure from scratch. But it is surprisingly functional while we can hope and pray for something better.