Why is the Catholic Study Bible type "Bible commentary" rather than "Bible notes"?
LLS:CSB2ED2013-09-11T18:26:49ZCSB2ED.logos4
Same issue exists with the Jewish Study Bible.
Isn't that what you would expect? Aren't study Bibles versified texts, just like commentaries, whereas "notes" would be much more passage related?
Frankly, to me, a study Bible is just a Bible with a running commentary, and so in Logos, where the Bible is usually removed, all you have left is the commentary.
Noticed "Study Bible" resources have four Types in my Library, including "Bible Commentary" for The Jewish Study Bible:
Keep Smiling [:)]
Isn't that what you would expect?
No because in study Bibles Logos removes the base text from the resource. In Bible Commentaries, they leave it in [:P]
Good question! To quote from Logos Standards in Metadata Correction Proposals:-
Commentaries and Bible Notes Types: Logos’ use of these types is primarily functional rather than descriptive. The Commentary type is broadly defined to include many different kinds of resources that are indexed by Bible verse, while the Bible Notes type is used exclusively for the notes from a Bible (usually study Bible notes).
Apart from MJ's observation above regarding the presence or absence of base text, don't these function pretty much identically? Why is there a need for difference of datatype? It seems that identity of function should result in identity of type, even if the nomenclature is not identical for whatever reason. I reassert that a study Bible is just a designation that has been given to a "Bible plus commentary" combo. They aren't different in any way I can see.
They aren't different in any way I can see.
The issue effects both the default behavior of the Passage Guide and the creation of Collection rules.
They aren't different in any way I can see. The issue effects both the default behavior of the Passage Guide and the creation of Collection rules.
Bible Notes function the same as commentaries in the Commentaries section of a guide e.g. type:commentary OR type:Notes is a valid rule.
That is correct and I have prioritized them appropriately ... I haven't check if/where they would appear if not prioritized.
