Pseudepigrapha references problem

I have Charles' Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the OT in English and though the works have references (eg., Jubilees 6.2) these are not recognized in Notes (ie, automatically hyperlinked). Worse, some of them are mistaken for something else: Testament of Dan 6.2 is recognized as Testament of "Daniel 6.2" (where Dan 6.2 is hyperlinked to Daniel 6.2). This needs fixing please.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MJ. Smith

Ouch! Glad you found and reported this.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/590993#Comment_590993

I just bought Charlesworth's edition and the problem is the same. Testament of Naphtali 2:1 is referenced as T. Naph. 2.1 (spaces as I have written them). I tried that and it is not recognized and hyperlinked. I removed spaces and tried variations with no success.

Allen Browne

I have Charles' Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the OT in English and though the works have references (eg., Jubilees 6.2) these are not recognized in Notes (ie, automatically hyperlinked). Worse, some of them are mistaken for something else: Testament of Dan 6.2 is recognized as Testament of "Daniel 6.2" (where Dan 6.2 is hyperlinked to Daniel 6.2). This needs fixing please.

Yes, it's been like this for some time.

Is it realistic to expect Logos to auto-recognize references to the books of the OT Pseudepigrapha? And the NT Pseudepigrapha? And the church fathers? And the Dead Sea Scrolls (where Notes hyperlinks Col 2 as Colossians 2 rather than Column 2 of the scroll)? And Calvin's Institutes? And ...?

It is, of course, possible (though time-consuming) to copy the hyperlink from Charles (or Charlesworth), and use the Inset Link icon on the Notes toolbar to insert the correct link.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/591033#Comment_591033

Is it realistic to expect Logos to auto-recognize references to the books of the OT Pseudepigrapha? And the NT Pseudepigrapha? And the church fathers? And the Dead Sea Scrolls (where Notes hyperlinks Col 2 as Colossians 2 rather than Column 2 of the scroll)? And Calvin's Institutes? And ...?

Yes ABSOLUTELY! This is after all the frequent argument advanced to defend the pricing of Logos books versus their printed counterparts (the metadata and the integration between resources and how time consuming it is to put it together). I understand that there may be problems of standardization for the references of works (example DSS documents that are variously named). But surely -- I hope -- there must be some reference databases that are made to avoid confusion? Perhaps I am mistaken but I would like to think that places like Yale, Cambridge, Oxford and other bastions of Bible research must NOT be spending time wondering whether references in publications are to Colossians or Column 2 of a scroll (I know however of no scroll that are just referenced by their scroll number and no other identifier).

It is true that there are reference abbreviations that are the same in different disciplines and it is context that helps the reader know which one is intended. But in the field of biblical studies, one would think there should not be competing reference abbreviations. But do correct me if I am mistaken and provide a few examples for my sake and perhaps that of others in my shoes.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/591033#Comment_591033

Is it realistic to expect Logos to auto-recognize references to the books of the OT Pseudepigrapha? And the NT Pseudepigrapha? And the church fathers? And the Dead Sea Scrolls (where Notes hyperlinks Col 2 as Colossians 2 rather than Column 2 of the scroll)? And Calvin's Institutes? And ...?

Yes although it may be a question of quality control rather than auto-recognize. I pay a premium to Logos precisely for the additional functionality that their tagging supplies. Logos gets more leeway from me in cases where there is no academic reference standard or where the book is assumed, not named, beyond paragraph boundaries. Generally, Logos does a good job; what is frustrating is when the errors are concentrated in a single resource.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/591062#Comment_591062

Today, "Wisdom of Solomon {chapter #}.{verse #} worked in annotations. I wished something like Wis Sol 2.1 would work or perhaps there is something like it that does work. If so, is there a list somewhere of the abbreviations that work in Logos? If not, it could be a good wiki project...

Moses I. 32 (as Philo's Life of Moses is referenced in The Works of Philo) does not work.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593475#Comment_593475

Wisdom 2:1 works for me ... however its not pseudepigrapha its apocrypha/deuterocanonical for which I think the wiki has a list ... if its not in the wiki, it's in my notes.[^o)]

The pseudepigrapha doesn't work - one has to use a URL. I would have expected that DSS, Talmud, Pseudepigrapha etc. that have standard references to also auto link.

Sleiman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593486#Comment_593486

The pseudepigrapha doesn't work - one has to use a URL.

Is there a neat way where in a place that I expect a link and there isn't that I create one myself?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593549#Comment_593549

http://wiki.logos.com/COM_API_Bible_Book_Abbreviations gives the standard ones. If you search the wiki you may find the more complete list.

http://www.logos.com/support/lbs/booknames is where I got my list.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593549#Comment_593549

Is there a neat way where in a place that I expect a link and there isn't that I create one myself?

1. Select the text in the resource window.

2. From the drop down menu, click on "Copy location as: URL".

3. In your annotation window, select the text to be hyperlinked (for instance Wis Sol 2.1), click on the icon that looks like a chain in the top right of the window, paste and enter.

Sleiman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593639#Comment_593639

Is there a neat way where in a place that I expect a link and there isn't that I create one myself?

1. Select the text in the resource window.

2. From the drop down menu, click on "Copy location as: URL".

3. In your annotation window, select the text to be hyperlinked (for instance Wis Sol 2.1), click on the icon that looks like a chain in the top right of the window, paste and enter.

Aha... the annotation window. Thanks Francis.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/593703#Comment_593703

Today, I entered a reference from Josephus (collected works, Jewish Wars). I typed it exactly as it appears in the resource: "War of the Jews 2.125". Logos did not recognize it.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/595511#Comment_595511

When you're adding notes or PBs, Logos doesn't auto-recognize any references except those in the Bible datatype (and it never has). Although I can see that it would be useful, it would be impossible to add this functionality for all datatypes (because there would be clashes and too many false-positives), and still a large amount of work to add it for 'common' datatypes such as the Pseudepigrapha, DSS, Josephus, Fathers, etc because of the complexities of those referencing schemes.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/595521#Comment_595521

Hi Mark, I understand your reasoning but do find it faulty on a couple counts.

First, as far as the work it would take, this is no greater undertaking than tagging any resource with metadata. Looking back at all the tagging that has been done already, one could have very well said beforehand that it was too large an undertaking. Yes, I concur it will take work but I am persuaded that this kind of tagging is precisely what makes Logos valuable.

Second, I agree that there is potential for false positives and issues with standardization. However, this is already the case with Bible references. Matthew for instance, is commonly abbreviated as Mt, Mat, Matt. Logos can standardize its own database of references and provide users access to that scheme so that everyone knows what to use. Some of it already exists anyway since when one enters a note on a versified resource, it is entered in the annotation file with a reference which is recognized by Logos as pointing back to that resource and passage.

Thank you then for your input, though I must disagree with it and still think my request more than justified.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/595545#Comment_595545

I agree with Mark, it'd be a tough nut to crack. The reason is 'resources' vs ancient books inside resources (eg Pseudepigrapha are usually packaged).

On my software, I use parsers for both my notes and incoming text from the internet. The OT/NT/Apocrypha is easy (almost always issues on mult-word books or jewish vs Christian names). But when you get into the pseudepgrapha and NT apocrypha, goodness. And indeed, my software assigns standard names, but the 'incoming' is sure not easy to parse. And the stupid user (some hair-brained lady) often can't remember the parsing, takes a shot and then has to bring up the editor to correct it.

That said, if/when Logos offers a PB 'store', I don't think this issue is going to die. Especially if you're publishing under program control (parsers). Indeed, if I were Logos (and good thing I'm not), link management would really be a plus to further selling Logos as the only real game in town. Amazon?? Don't think so.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/595545#Comment_595545

I must disagree with it and still think my request more than justified.

I wasn't for a moment suggesting your request wasn't justified. We're all justified in making requests for things we'd find useful, and I'm sure all those requests are helpful to Logos in determining priorities. Instead my post was intended to shed some light as to why the current behaviour was as it was, and what might be needed to 'fix it'.

First, as far as the work it would take, this is no greater undertaking than tagging any resource with metadata. Looking back at all the tagging that has been done already, one could have very well said beforehand that it was too large an undertaking. Yes, I concur it will take work but I am persuaded that this kind of tagging is precisely what makes Logos valuable.

This is where I must disagree with your reasoning, because the two concepts (editors tagging resources and users tagging notes) are quite different. As far as I know, ordinary resources are tagged with a mixture of automatic and manual tagging, using custom tools that Logos has designed specifically for the process. The person doing the tagging is aware of all the datatypes needed by that resource, and whatever 'automatic' process is involved can be tuned to give them help for specific datatypes. Editors use a fully featured tool that combines auto-tagging with editorial input to achieve its end, and is significantly more powerful (and requires significantly more editorial input) than the automated tagging in notes and PBs.

What this means is that whilst Logos may have professional tools for semi-automating the linking of references to the Pseudepigrapha, Fathers, etc, those tools could not be easily adapted to a fully-automated linking system, or even a consumer-oriented semi-automatic system.

Some of it already exists anyway since when one enters a note on a versified resource, it is entered in the annotation file with a reference which is recognized by Logos as pointing back to that resource and passage.

It all exists already, but that's not the point. The point is that Logos would have to write software to automatically recognise these references. That's the hard bit. And the more references that are to look for, the slower the process becomes. And it probably ought to be supported in multiple languages, all of which have their own names for pseudepigraphal works (English, Swedish, German, Spanish, etc.)

It's certainly not impossible for Logos to implement this functionality, and it would be useful — but it wouldn't be easy to add even one or two extra datatypes, and it would be impossible to add every datatype (the existing system just wouldn't scale).

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/595584#Comment_595584

The practical approach is to select a single journal and implement it's standard abbreviations/reference scheme.