Question re: apparatus Biblical or otherwise Bug? Coding?

The critical apparatus (Latin: apparatus criticus) is the critical and primary source material that accompanies an edition of a text. A critical apparatus is often a by-product of textual criticism.

Given the definition from Wikipedia above, I would expect every apparatus resource to be tied to an edition of the text itself. However only ~36% of my resources tagged apparatus open showing a parallel resource for the actual text.

Among those missing the relationship are:

Charles, R. H. Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Apparatuses). Logos Bible Software, 1913; 2004.

Josephus, Flavius, and Benedikt Niese. Works of Flavius Josephus: Critical Apparatus. Berolini: apvd Weidmannos, 1888–.

Charles, Robert Henry, ed. Apocrypha of the Old Testament (apparatuses). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2004.

Ottley, Richard R., ed. The Book of Isaiah According to the Septuagint (Codex Alexandrinus) (Critical Apparatus). Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1906.

McRae, Calvin Alexander. The Hebrew Text of Ben Sira: Critical Notes. Toronto: Queen Printing Co., 1910.

Swete, Henry Barclay. The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint (Apparatus Alternative). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909.

Tischendorf, Constantin von, Caspar René Gregory, and Ezra Abbot, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. Lipsiae: Giesecke & Devrient, 1869–1894.

Is Logos expecting to user to create the necessary parallel resource collections or are these items simply missed by Logos? If the former, I'll make a suggestion that Logos build these parallel relationships. If the latter, I'll make a suggestion that Logos audit all its type:Apparatus or type:Bible Apparatus resources for this error.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

As discussed here (http://community.logos.com/forums/p/86045/604107.aspx#604107) Parallel Resources do not cross resource types by default. I haven't checked the resource types of the resources you listed, but I suspect that's what's happening here.

Given that, are you suggesting that the same-resource-type constraint be relaxed for apparatus resources? (I haven't fully thought through the ramifications, but that seems reasonable to me... I think. [:)])

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/609745#Comment_609745

Given that, are you suggesting that the same-resource-type constraint be relaxed for apparatus resources?

Yes, I am.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/609745#Comment_609745

~36% of my resources tagged apparatus open showing a parallel resource for the actual text

Can you give me an example? I haven't found any yet.

Is Logos expecting to user to create the necessary parallel resource collections

You get that to work?

Parallel Resources do not cross resource types by default

An apparatus, like a commentary, is by definition a different type than the text it comments on.[;)]

Plus I don't get any Parallel Resources button even when you've made them both monographs. See e g Clement of Alexandria: Quis Dives Salvetur.

That said, I am not sure they are parallel, in the sense you normally use the word. I don't get commentaries as parallel to Bibles or the other way around, even though they are meant to be read together, and I don't think I would want to. Those lists are long enough anyway. The parallel to an apparatus is another apparatus on the same text.

Yet, MJ does have a point. It would be good if there was a quicker way to open the apparatus from within the text, or the other way around. Same with Study Bibles. Perhaps a button that worked the same way as Equivalent Resources, but instead displayed resources that belong together: text/apparatus, text/notes, text/translation...

And it would also be good if you took a look at the metadata for apparatuses. This is somewhat confusing and inconsistent:

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/609866#Comment_609866

I agree with fgh that it is better that 3 distinctions be made:

serial link set
parallel link set - resources generally unrelated to each other but related to a common text (example: commentaries)
equivalent link set - resources sharing a base (examples: current equivalent sets, text/apparatuses)

As noted elsewhere, I would prefer to see text/translation as an equivalent link set rather than the current parallel link set (think Latin/English church documents). I'd like to be able to think of them in this way:

serial link set - different resource in same series
parallel link set - different (independent) resource on same base text
equivalent link set - different form of same base text

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/609871#Comment_609871

I agree with fgh that it is better that 3 distinctions be made

If we include series, I think I made 4...

You still use words in a completely different way than Logos (and me). Parallel Resources are not "generally unrelated". What's unrelated between NAB and NABRE? Nor are they "related to a common text". What's the common text behind The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land and That’s Easy For You to Say: Your Quick Guide to Pronouncing Bible Names? What they have in common is not a text, but a Type and an English Headword index. That's what make them parallel.

And Equivalent Resources don't have a "different form of same base text". They're supposed to have the identical base text (though display, notes, cross references or the like may differ). Like two paper Bibles of the same edition, where one has red letters and the other doesn't. One starts each verse on a new line, the other doesn't. One includes notes and cross references, the other doesn't. So equivalent that you can quote from one in an academic paper, and your teacher can use the other to check your quotes.

What I suggested was a new category with the main purpose of bringing books that Logos has split up into several resources for various reasons back together again.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/609891#Comment_609891

from the other thread:

My logic?

serial link set - one normally wants to simply switch to a particular member of the set

parallel link set - one generally wants to cycle through the members of the set

equivalent link set - one generally wants to flip back and forth or open side-by-side.

I disagree that I am using terms differently than Logos ... I am simply using a different level of abstraction than you. I have no objection to additional categories and considered it several times. However, functionally I believe that three categories are sufficient and, since there already are three categories with differing functionality, should be readily implemented.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/609745#Comment_609745

Given that, are you suggesting that the same-resource-type constraint be relaxed for apparatus resources? (I haven't fully thought through the ramifications, but that seems reasonable to me... I think.

The real issue is to pair the matching text/apparatus in a way distinct from Parallel Resources, whether as Equivalent Resources or via text links. So showing them in All Parallel Resources would not be optimal/desirable, particularly as matching can be achieved manually via Collections with "Show in parallel resources",

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/609891#Comment_609891

Parallel Resources are not "generally unrelated"

By "generally unrelated" I mean that most of them are by different authors, publishers, publication dates ...

Nor are they "related to a common text"

The examples you give are all tied to a specific subsets of a common text - the Bible. You are absolutely correct that this is exhibited by data type and index ... and yes I stretched the meaning of "text" to include English dictionaries.

don't have a "different form of same base text".

By different form I meant the same things you describe which to me are matters of form. However, with the current use of equivalence you cannot use one to check the reference given to another ... for example, the clause analysis has to be checked in that specific reference. That is why I felt comfortable looking at the functionality and suggesting that text/translation be considered as a transformation of form. You are correct that Bibles, apocryphal and pseudepigraphical materials do not fit this model but belong as parallels

What I suggested was a new category with the main purpose of bringing books that Logos has split up into several resources for various reasons back together again.

I agree that this is highly desirable.

I am always open to better terminology to describe the resource sets' definitions especially in this case where the functional definition is more clear than the descriptive one.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/609900#Comment_609900

Suggestion incorporating fgh's concern:

That the following link set types be implemented consistently across all Logos resources:

serial link set - one normally wants to simply switch to a particular member of the set
parallel link set - one generally wants to cycle through the members of the set
equivalent link set - one generally wants to flip back and forth or open side-by-side
resource link set - one wants the set to behave as a single resource which it was originally. It may still want to use multiple panes in some instances.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/609866#Comment_609866

~36% of my resources tagged apparatus open showing a parallel resource for the actual text

Can you give me an example? I haven't found any yet.

Grossouw, Willem. The Coptic Versions of the Minor Prophets: A Contribution to the Study of the Septuagint. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1938.

Swete, Henry Barclay. The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint (Apparatus). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909.

Tischendorf, Constantin von, Caspar Rene Gregory, and Ezra Abbot. Novum Testamentum Graece: Prolegomena. Libronix, 1894.

Tischendorf, Constantin von, Caspar René Gregory, and Ezra Abbot, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. Lipsiae: Giesecke & Devrient, 1869–1894.

Holmes, Michael W. Apparatus for the Greek New Testament: SBL Edition. Logos Bible Software, 2010.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/609907#Comment_609907

I double-checked two and they did not show "a parallel resource for the actual text". They showed other apparatuses as Parallel Resources.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/609911#Comment_609911

I clearly assumed too much [:(]