In the cross-reference section of the Passage Guide, are all Bibles with cross-reference information fields searched to fill the section?
MJ. I don't claim to be clever but, I do love a challenge, so, I'll start this ball rolling. The cross reference section is keyed to your top prioritized bible. Therefore, not all bibles are searched just your favorite bible is searched. Now whether or not all bibles will render equivalent information I am not sure, I'll have to test this proposition.
Edit: you know, a better way of answering this question is to note that the books being searched is the Treasury Scripture Knowledge and the New Treasury Scripture Knowledge so all cross references are keyed to them and thus it doesn't matter what bible is your favorite bible. Right?
The top portion of the cross-references include Treasury, New Treasury and personal cross-references.
The bottom portion comes from (primarily)Bibles which must have the cross-references trait set (as per Mark Barnes). I can only find which Bibles have that trait indirectly. But I can't easily tell if all such Bibles are searched or if only a subset are used.
I can't easily tell if all such Bibles are searched or if only a subset are used.
Here is a statement about bible cross-references I can't tell which bibles are searched, or whether the search is restricted to those having the "cross-reference" field. A few example passages show that some cross-refs come from the TSK/NTSK, and that not every cross-ref in my preferred bible (ESV) or my Top Bibles is used.
When I really started using Logos with L4, one of the first things I asked about was cross references. It still seems to me that Logos could provide a feature that gave us the mathematical union of cross references from a set (collection ?) of resources having cross reference data. As it is, I'm left picking and poking from TSK and my top couple of Bibles (manually), and Carson/Beale (Commentary on NT use of OT) - hoping I don't miss anything useful.
Donnie
All Bibles that have the cross-references trait are searched for this section.
I don't know whether all Bibles with cross references have this trait; it's possible that some have been inadvertently omitted.
I don't have the time to reread them now, but didn't we conclude in two threads I linked to in the thread Dave linked to above that there are many Bibles missing that trait. I think Mark posted a list somewhere of Bibles especially important to add it to.
We did indeed, and apparently there is a case open: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/70726.aspx
So, to answer MJ's question:
All Bibles with the 'contains-cross-reference-footnotes' trait are included in this section. That's only 9 Bibles, namely:
The Bibles missing this trait are listed below, together with the number of cross-references they contain. Whilst not all need to be added, it would be a benefit adding at least the first eight. It would make the biggest difference to Verbum users, and others who want to see cross-references to the Apocrypha, which are very thin on the ground currently:
* I believe the first list is complete, as it comes from Logos' own metadata. The second list is restricted to resources that I own. There may be other Bibles I don't own that also have cross references, or Bibles that have cross references but don't utilise the cross-reference field [such as the TNIV]). If you want to try it for yourself, do a "By Count" search in a Bibles collection, searching the Cross Reference field for <Gen-Rev>. Go and make a coffee whilst you await results ;-).
It still seems to me that Logos could provide a feature that gave us the mathematical union of cross references from a set (collection ?) of resources having cross reference data.
That's exactly what's happening in the passage guide. The problem is that for some reason not all appropriate resources are included.
Clarifying...
First, you're saying that the Cross Reference section of the Passage Guide is supposed to provide the functionality I described?
Second, are you saying that some resources that are properly marked are still being excluded from that section? Or are you saying that the section is including all properly marked resources but that for unknown reasons there are a bunch of resources that could be so-marked but are not?
Thanks,
In order for a Bible to be searched for cross-references, two things have to be true:
So all the resources listed by Mark have cross-references available but only those in group 1 appear in the PG xref section.
In addition, there is no direct way to get the cross-references from group 2 into a passage list for review. The net result is that the deuterocanonicals are grossly under represented.
Correct.
The latter. Every resource in Logos has certain 'traits' which determine how it is used. This is how Logos knows, for example, which resources to search in the "Illustrations" section of the passage guide (the trait is called "sermon-illustrations"). These traits are not displayed in Logos, but can be seen in the catalog.db file. Unfortunately, several of the Bibles that could be marked with the "contains-cross-reference-footnotes" trait, aren't. No-one has yet explained why.
Adding counts - note that I don't own several of the Bibles used for cross-references.
The additions from my Library
Second, are you saying that some resources that are properly marked are still being excluded from that section? Or are you saying that the section is including all properly marked resources but that for unknown reasons there are a bunch of resources that could be so-marked but are not? The latter. Every resource in Logos has certain 'traits' which determine how it is used. This is how Logos knows, for example, which resources to search in the "Illustrations" section of the passage guide (the trait is called "sermon-illustrations"). These traits are not displayed in Logos, but can be seen in the catalog.db file. Unfortunately, several of the Bibles that could be marked with the "contains-cross-reference-footnotes" trait, aren't. No-one has yet explained why.
this is absolutely (to coin a term) mifftafying, now I see why MJ. posed the question and Mark's sage answers and citations underscore the desirability of amping up the utility of Passage Guide. I do hope that someone explains the why question posed in the prior appended remark.
An aside. Mark and MJ. where are you getting your cross reference counts from?
Mark gave the instructions above. Do a search on cross-reference, cross-references text across your entire library with the search term <Gen-Rev> and sort by count. Mark advised a coffee break. I assure you that tea also works.
The NAB revised has 15859 passage references in footnotes, not necessarily x-refs because some are denoted 'see passage' or are part of a textual comment. But it is sparsely represented for a PG on Gen 6:1-8 e.g. the references to Sirach are omitted. I wonder if you confused this with NASB95 which has the cross-reference field (NAB does not) and is better represented in this PG.
Five of my English bibles have the cross-reference field but I don't see all their x-refs in a PG, and four also have the cross-reference trait (from your table).
But it is sparsely represented for a PG on Gen 6:1-8 e.g. the references to Sirach are omitted.
If I look at Genesis 6:1-8 in NABRE, I find three cross reference indicators: (a) in verse 2, (b) in verse 4, and (c) in verse 5. None of them refer to Sirach. There is a cross reference (d) to Sirach in verse 9, and when I extend the PG to verse 9, that cross reference is included
NABRE has a cross-reference field, (but NAB does not).
Every resource in Logos has certain 'traits' which determine how it is used. This is how Logos knows, for example, which resources to search in the "Illustrations" section of the passage guide (the trait is called "sermon-illustrations"). These traits are not displayed in Logos, but can be seen in the catalog.db file. Unfortunately, several of the Bibles that could be marked with the "contains-cross-reference-footnotes" trait, aren't. No-one has yet explained why.
Just to understand better: are you saying that everything is there in the respective bibles and it was just an oversight on Logos' side to not insert the flag in the catalog.db? What would happen if someone were to "correct" the catalog.db trait manually in SQLlite (not that I'd recommend someone editing the SQL db on a productively used L5 installation) - would this make the cross-references usable?
Just to understand better: are you saying that everything is there in the respective bibles and it was just an oversight on Logos' side to not insert the flag in the catalog.db?
That appears to be the case, judging by Bradley's comments above, and elsewhere.
What would happen if someone were to "correct" the catalog.db trait manually in SQLlite (not that I'd recommend someone editing the SQL db on a productively used L5 installation) - would this make the cross-references usable?
I've already tried that. It doesn't work. The flag comes via Logos' metadata service — probably when it comes it updates catalog.db and some other database that we haven't yet discovered.
If I look at Genesis 6:1-8 in NABRE, I find three cross reference indicators: (a) in verse 2, (b) in verse 4, and (c) in verse 5. None of them refer to Sirach. There is a cross reference (d) to Sirach in verse 9, and when I extend the PG to verse 9, that cross reference is included NABRE has a cross-reference field, (but NAB does not).
Yes, I confused those two bibles.
But I still have a lot of cross-references in PG Gen 6:1-8 that I cannot locate in any of my bibles, nor TSK/NTSK e.g. <Ge 7:23>, <Ge 41:38>, <Ex 32:14>, <Ex 33:13>, <Ex 33:16>, <Ex 34:9>.
Hi Dave
<Ex 33:13>, <Ex 33:16>,
These are in ESV
<Ge 7:23>
This is in NKJV
<Ge 41:38>
as is this
<Ex 32:14>
This is in TNIV
<Ex 34:9>
as it this
Do you have these Bibles?
Graham
They come from the TNIV, NKJV, TNIV, ESV, ESV and TNIV respectively. <edit>Sorry, forgot to click 'Post', and by then Graham had responded.</edit>
<Ex 33:13>, <Ex 33:16>, These are in ESV ... ... Do you have these Bibles?
These are in ESV ...
...
Thanks, Graham
I was looking for references to Gen 6:1-8 in those bibles, rather than the x-refs from Gen 6:1-8 (in those bibles)! That explains everything i.e. x-refs not used in PG. But I came up with Nu 13:31 from HCSB (in Ge 6:4) that is not listed in PG, presumably because it is not a Cross-Reference fn. Yet it gives results from TNIV without a Cross-Reference field.
But I came up with Nu 13:31 from HCSB (in Ge 6:4) that is not listed in PG, presumably because it is not a Cross-Reference fn
Strange - I would have expected that to show up in the PG
Yet it gives results from TNIV without a Cross-Reference field.
Not sure what you mean here - can you expand?
EDIT: Sorry - I see you have posted this as a separate Bug thread.
Okay, I am clearly doing something wrong in trying to reconcile the results. HELP!!
Okay, I am clearly doing something wrong in trying to reconcile the results.
I've just looked at a few results which I get in my PG and which you aren't able to correlate.
I find that these XREFs are from TNIV.
I think you said you didn't have this - is that the case?
(Clutching at straws here - do you have it hidden?)
Ah yes I have the TNIV - don't know how I missed that on Mark's list.
But I came up with Nu 13:31 from HCSB (in Ge 6:4) that is not listed in PG, presumably because it is not a Cross-Reference fn. Yet it gives results from TNIV without a Cross-Reference field.
Yes, that's correct. I believe an exception is made for the TNIV whereby it is assumed that all footnotes are cross-references.
All Bibles with the 'contains-cross-reference-footnotes' trait are included in this section. That's only 9 Bibles, namely: English Standard Version International Standard Version, New Testament La Biblia de las Américas New American Bible: Revised Edition Nueva Biblia Latinoamericana de Hoy Reina Valera Revisada (1960) The Holman Christian Standard Bible The New King James Version Today’s New International Version
So hiding Spanish Bibles isn't such a good idea, I take it?
Whilst not all need to be added, it would be a benefit adding at least the first eight.
A few more, please:
All of these have unique perspectives and may come up with unique xrefs that can't be found elsewhere in Logos Bibles. Plus The Aramaic Bible would have been much higher up if you had added all the volumes together.
And also the ones high up on MJ's list, of course.
It depends on whether you like Spanish cross-references[:)]
Three different threads later (one offshoot in Beta, one Bug offshoot and this thread) and not one response from Logos!
Whilst not all need to be added, it would be a benefit adding at least the first eight. A few more, please: The CJB The Aramaic Bible The EOB All of these have unique perspectives and may come up with unique xrefs that can't be found elsewhere in Logos Bibles. Plus The Aramaic Bible would have been much higher up if you had added all the volumes together. And also the ones high up on MJ's list, of course.
Now that I've run my own search, I want to add:
Bibel 2000, which does have cross references for the OT, would be even better -- except the Logos edition leaves out all the notes and cross references, and in spite of trying for over three years, I still haven't managed to get Logos to do anything about it, or even give me much of an answer.
Bradley did reply earlier in this thread. But nothing since then on all the issues (bugs ?) and discrepancies that are being pointed out.
We do have an active case for updating the sources for Cross References in PG. I've added a link to this thread to make sure we consider the resources you all have listed here. There's currently no ETA assigned to the case.
This should be fixed in 5.2b Beta 3. [:)]
We do have an active case for updating the sources for Cross References in PG.
The following resources have had the "contains-cross-reference-footnotes" trait added: (sorry for the formatting)
Thank you very much.
We do have an active case for updating the sources for Cross References in PG. The following resources have had the "contains-cross-reference-footnotes" trait added: (sorry for the formatting) Alford's Greek Testament (Text and Notes) The Uncanonical and Apocryphal Scriptures The Ecclesiastical or Deutero-Canonical Books of the Old Testament Commonly Called the Apocrypha Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum Edition AMPATBBL ARAMAICBBL01A ARAMAICBBL01B ARAMAICBBL02 ARAMAICBBL04 ARAMAICBBL05A ARAMAICBBL06 ARAMAICBBL07 ARAMAICBBL08 ARAMAICBBL09 ARAMAICBBL11 ARAMAICBBL12 ARAMAICBBL13 ARAMAICBBL14 ARAMAICBBL15 ARAMAICBBL18 ARAMAICBBL19 AV1873 CEB CEV CZECHSB DCAPOCCHURTON DCBENSIRAOESTERLEY DCECCLBALL DCECCLCOWLEYENG DCECCLCOWLEYHEB DCTOBITGASTER DCWISDOESTERLEY DCWISDSTEVENSON EC_BLFBIBPV2009 EINHEIT EINHEIT2 EMPHBBL EOBNT EXPBBLNT GNBNR2000 GNT ID-BIMK ID-ITB KJV1900 LBLA95 LUTBIB1984 MENGE MINPRODRIVER MINPROHORSLEY MINPROROWLEY MINPROWADE MS-TDYMALAYV NA28GBS NBV NBVTEST NCV NEWSFLLIFBBL NIV2011 NOVAVULGATA RSV2CE SI-PIJINBBL SNTGMUBS4 TH-THBS1973 TNIV TONGANBBL TSV ZURCHERBBL200
So all these bibles were recently updated to appear in Cross References section
This. They should appear regardless of software version, as the resources were updated with the traits, not the software.
Thanks Dylan - my results are greatly improved.
Glad to hear it! [:)]
I received no resource updates so far. It's only a metadata update?
Yes, I believe it was just a metadata change, so we didn't need to rebuild the resources (which would require an update).
The following resources have had the "contains-cross-reference-footnotes" trait added:
Thanks, that's many more than I dared hope for (especially this soon).
However, one Bible I'm not seeing is Bibel 82. I wouldn't trouble you with it if it wasn't for the fact that, as you can see in one of my posts above, it turned out to be an exceptional Bible for [NT & Apocrypha] cross references. So, is there any chance you could add it? It can't be that much work if it's only metadata.
Also, am I correct in not seeing NASB and the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible on that list? They were among Mark's top 8.
So, is there any chance you could add it?
fgh,
I added the trait. Please verify the resource shows up in the passage guide as expected after you have done a meta data sync.
Thanks!
I added the trait.
Thanks, that was fast!
Please verify the resource shows up in the passage guide as expected after you have done a meta data sync.
Perhaps I'm just too tired, but I can't figure out how to verify that.
Sorry, I forgot that the section displays a combined(from all resources with the trait) list of verses only.
