Please update Bible Datatypes in wiki

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286590#Comment_286590

Thanks for doing this! (Though it really should be Logos' job, as I have argued here.) I've already made a list for Swedish, Jewish and most Catholic Bibles, plus a few others. I'll add it to the Wiki later, right now I have somewhere I have to be in half an hour.

NB.Mick

I've updated that wiki list as best I can, but it needs to be completed by people having bibles I don't!

Thanks Dave,

I updated some German bibles and the Vulgate

Mick

Mikko Paavola

bible+bibel82 = Swedish Bibel-82 , Finnish KR-1933/38

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286613#Comment_286613

I created a page to try and get to the bottom of the various verse maps. I think it contains all of the unique verse mapping systems. It's a bit useless as merely a list, so I didn't bother creating any links to it: http://wiki.logos.com/Verse_Mapping

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286635#Comment_286635

I created a page to try and get to the bottom of the various verse maps.

The first column (Code) of Datatype wiki would appear to be the Verse Map. Could it not be renamed? Unless you are going to add verse data a separate list is not needed.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286656#Comment_286656

The first column (Code) of Datatype wiki would appear to be the Verse Map. Could it not be renamed? Unless you are going to add verse data a separate list is not needed.

The two lists are not the same, because there are datatypes missing from the verse maps list. I constructed the list partly to see what overlap there was, and as you can see 100% of the verse maps are datatypes, but not vice-versa. I don't know why that is, and I don't know where there are datatypes not in the verse map list. I also don't know how to get the verse-mapping data from Logos (which would be great to have). It's that ignorance that makes the list a bit pointless at the moment. But it took me a little while to create the list, and I'd rather not delete it in case it comes in handy. After all, I created the Bible Datatypes page back in May 2010, and it only began to be useful in September 2011!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286740#Comment_286740

The two lists are not the same, because there are datatypes missing from the verse maps list. I constructed the list partly to see what overlap there was, and as you can see 100% of the verse maps are datatypes, but not vice-versa.

100% of verse maps are not datatypes, but I've found the missing ones in a recent logos4.log, so I'll add them to the datatypes i.e. bl2000, bnp, cjb, hb, isv, lxxg, pijin, raa1933, rv1909, tongan,

But I found new datatypes that are not verse maps i.e. expnt, ncv, rva, rvr95, thb1973, tsv.

We need Logos to help clear this up and explain why ncv & isv are not used by the English bibles of that name (if that is a correct understanding of the acronym).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286740#Comment_286740

The two lists are not the same, because there are datatypes missing from the verse maps list. I constructed the list partly to see what overlap there was, and as you can see 100% of the verse maps are datatypes, but not vice-versa.

1) Did I do something wrong yesterday? I found 3 or 4 verse maps that didn't fit anywhere, so I simply created a new line and added the bible+ info from the pattern of the others. Should I rather have left the first column empty? I can fix it if you tell me to.

2) I didn't want to fill in any data from Bibles I can't personally check, but I can easily guess what should be in many of those empty boxes:

jps1917, lu1545, njb and rsvce all look pretty self-explanatory to me.
afr1933 and afr1983 must be Afrikaans.
danbib sounds like it would be one of the Danish Bibles in SESB.
ntlh and vpee turned up when I investigated pericope sets the other week.

3) Someone's changed BibleBL2000 into BibleB2000. Why? It sure is BibleBL2000 in my copy. I've triple or quadruple checked. (Though I agree BibleB2000 would have been more intuitive.)

I've found the missing ones in a recent logos4.log, so I'll add them to the datatypes i.e. bl2000, bnp, cjb, hb, isv, lxxg, pijin, raa1933, rv1909, tongan

bl2000 is already there (or at least it was until someone made that change), but cjb and raa1933 seems weird. I have personally confirmed that CJB uses the BibleUT versemap, and someone else is supposed to have confirmed that Raamattu 1933 uses BibleBIBEL82.

I'd rather not delete it in case it comes in handy

Mark, couldn't your page be used to document what we know about how the verse maps differ? Things like UT = BHS+NA27 (no Apocrypha), and B21 = BHS (except for Job31:40-41) + standard 'Bible' NT (except for Acts19:40-41, which is=NA27). (Got those two from forum threads.) And then when we know more we could group them, based on how they arrange chapters and verses in Psalms and things like that. Maybe even create something looking a bit like one of MJ's argument maps: What Psalm does this quote come from in your Bible? If it's Ps x, follow the red line; if it's Ps y, follow the blue line; and so on.

Of course, I still don't think we should have to do this, but, well...

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286867#Comment_286867

The two lists are not the same, because there are datatypes missing from the verse maps list. I constructed the list partly to see what overlap there was, and as you can see 100% of the verse maps are datatypes, but not vice-versa.

1) Did I do something wrong yesterday? I found 3 or 4 verse maps that didn't fit anywhere, so I simply created a new line and added the bible+ info from the pattern of the others. Should I rather have left the first column empty? I can fix it if you tell me to.

No, that's fine. You edited the datatypes page, not the verse map page (it seems that not all Bible Datatypes have verse maps). Datatypes are easy to find, so if you have resources with datatypes that aren't listed, feel free to add them to the datatypes page. Verse maps are hidden in Logos, so unless people definitely know how to find out about verse maps, it's best they don't add to the verse maps page.

Someone's changed BibleBL2000 into BibleB2000. Why? It sure is BibleBL2000 in my copy. I've triple or quadruple checked. (Though I agree BibleB2000 would have been more intuitive.)

Actually there's a B2000 and a BL2000. The line originally had b2000 in the first column and BL2000 in the second column, so Dave corrected the second column. In reality, there should be a line for each.

Mark, couldn't your page be used to document what we know about how the verse maps differ?

That's what I'm thinking now. See http://community.logos.com/forums/t/38327.aspx

Of course, I still don't think we should have to do this, but, well...

Agreed [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286891#Comment_286891

No, that's fine. You edited the datatypes page, not the verse map page (it seems that not all Bible Datatypes have verse maps). Datatypes are easy to find, so if you have resources with datatypes that aren't listed, feel free to add them to the datatypes page. Verse maps are hidden in Logos, so unless people definitely know how to find out about verse maps, it's best they don't add to the verse maps page.

This subject is getting more complicated by the minute (as if it wasn't complicated enough already...). I had gotten the impression that BibleXYZ was the name of the verse map, but now you're making distinctions between datatypes and versemaps and it's all beginning to go far beyond me.

I'm afraid I don't have anything more to add to the list, unless I unhide a few odd languages I currently have hidden, or add those guesses I made in the last post.

Actually there's a B2000 and a BL2000. The line originally had b2000 in the first column and BL2000 in the second column, so Dave corrected the second column. In reality, there should be a line for each.

I see. Though I wouldn't quite call that "corrected", since it now says that Bibel 2000 uses the data type B2000, which is clearly incorrect. It would have been better to change the first column to bl2000, and then add a new line for b2000. I'll fix it. Wonder what b2000 is when it isn't Bibel 2000?

Btw, could you by any chance answer this question for me?

I also started a verse mapping thread there a week or so ago. I don't know if you can add much there on Bible verse mapping that hasn't already been said here by now, but towards the end I'm wondering about how to tag Melito's On Pascha. I just found a Wiki page with author datatypes. Is there a way for me to use that info to get the tagging I want?

Vincent Setterholm

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286940#Comment_286940

it seems that not all Bible Datatypes have verse maps.

I had gotten the impression that BibleXYZ was the name of the verse map, but now you're making distinctions between datatypes and versemaps and it's all beginning to go far beyond me.

While theoretically a data type and a verse map are different things, pratically speaking: in Logos 4 every Bible data type also has a versemap. The un-named 'Bible' data type has a versemap, too - just not a particularly accurate one, since its main purpose is to support generic tagging of references when the tagger can't know what versification scheme an author is following. Since we can (almost) always know what scheme is being used by Bibles themselves (since the Bibles are de-facto documentation for their own versification), the plain Jane Bible data type is unlikely to get used for milestones in actual Bibles in the future, and over time I suspect that the few remaining Bibles that use that data type will get updated to more appropriate data types.

Wonder what b2000 is when it isn't Bibel 2000?

B2000 was deprecated in favor of BL2000 because the current implementation of the Bible data types doesn't let us make major structural changes to a data type once it has shipped, but we needed to make some improvements to B2000. You'll note, if you look at the resource for Bibel 2000, that the name in the Index is Bible (B2000). This is because we can create a new data type with a different internal name (in this case BL2000) but give it the same <title> (external name in the UI), as long as we rename the <title> element of the older, deprecated data type. And it would have worked, too, if it weren't for you meddling kids PBB makers. No one would have been the wiser....

The internal files for each versemap do have title and description information somewhat akin to what you have on the wiki (but without any reference to what resources use which data types). I have a little script for aggregating that info, so I've appended some data to: http://wiki.logos.com/Bible_Datatypes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286891#Comment_286891

You edited the datatypes page, not the verse map page (it seems that not all Bible Datatypes have verse maps).

Some datatypes are overload because they don't have verse maps e.g. NCV bible uses standard Bible map and Index, but BibleNCV will work as a datatype in bible references in a PB.

EDIT: just saw Vincent's contribution, and it all makes sense.

ISV NT bible also uses standard Bible map and Index, but it has a verse map likely intended for the pre-pub ISV Bible (NT+OT).

Of course, I still don't think we should have to do this, but, well...

Agreed

Yes!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286956#Comment_286956

Thanks a lot, Vincent! I've changed your å's and ä's and ö's and ø's and ü's and é's. They looked horrible in my browser. I hope they don't now look horrible in yours. I'll look at the Spanish letters tomorrow if no one beats me to it.

the plain Jane Bible data type is unlikely to get used for milestones in actual Bibles in the future, and over time I suspect that the few remaining Bibles that use that data type will get updated to more appropriate data types.

So you're saying that lots of Bibles have -- and in the future even more Bibles will have -- versemaps with separate names but identical content? Bible, BibleISV and BibleNCV are all the same, as are BibleCJB and BibleUT?

Sorry to have unmasked your internal 'secrets' [:D]

Vincent Setterholm

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286973#Comment_286973

Bible, BibleISV and BibleNCV are all the same

They're really not. 'Bible' was cobbled togther over the years to support a lot of different texts, so it doesn't actually match any one print Bible that's ever existed. But even between BibleISV and BibleNCV, I see a few minor differences in the way the content lines up.

Some verse maps are entirely aliases of a combination of books from other verse maps, and in a few cases a verse map might be an exact copy of all the books of just one other mapping - typically that's only done if the name for the existing versemap is really innappropriate for the new Bible. To pick a not-true example, I don't think the publishers would like it if we made the NASB use Bible+ESV as its data type, even if the content lined up perfectly - too much to explain. But this type of thing is actually pretty rare - usually there are at least a few differences between one Bible and the next that warrant the versemap apart from branding concerns.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286956#Comment_286956

I have a little script for aggregating that info, so I've appended some data to: http://wiki.logos.com/Bible_Datatypes

All that data is now reflected in the Datatype table. If Mark and fgh are satisfied Vincent's dump can be removed (save it in Mark's Verse Map list?). Still a few character codes (&#x) to be resolved.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287035#Comment_287035

All that data is now reflected in the Datatype table. If Mark and fgh are satisfied Vincent's dump can be removed (save it in Mark's Verse Map list?). Still a few character codes (&#x) to be resolved.

Thanks for doing that. I hoped someone would! It looked OK to me, so I deleted the dump, and resolved the character codes. If fgh or anyone else wants to check, the dump is still available here: http://wiki.logos.com/blame.aspx?id=58d6b8d0-6cf9-4e1e-a169-d3f1fec7b787&revision=36

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287098#Comment_287098

I ... resolved the character codes

So did I! But when I tried to save I couldn't, because you had been doing the exact same thing at the exact same time but managed to finish a minute or two before me. Isn't it frustrating when that happens! [:'(]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/286978#Comment_286978

They're really not. 'Bible' was cobbled togther over the years to support a lot of different texts, so it doesn't actually match any one print Bible that's ever existed. But even between BibleISV and BibleNCV, I see a few minor differences in the way the content lines up.

Some verse maps are entirely aliases of a combination of books from other verse maps, and in a few cases a verse map might be an exact copy of all the books of just one other mapping - typically that's only done if the name for the existing versemap is really innappropriate for the new Bible.

I can't say that you made it less complicated, but at least it's getting a bit clearer. Thanks.

Mark & Dave

I noticed that the CJB has been removed from BibleUT, but my copy of it is definitely using that versemap, not the CJB one.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone counted this final list?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287108#Comment_287108

I noticed that the CJB has been removed from BibleUT, but my copy of it is definitely using that versemap, not the CJB one.

CJB = Complete Jewish Bible using BibleUT? Please replace together with the edition as we might assume it was an earlier version than what BibleCJB was designed for (comments, Vincent?).

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287118#Comment_287118

CJB = Complete Jewish Bible using BibleUT?

Definitely UT:

(Has there been more than one version released of this? It's rather new.)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287169#Comment_287169

Definitely UT:

Please check the datatype after you use Ctrl+Alt+C for a reference.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287229#Comment_287229

Please check the datatype after you use Ctrl+Alt+C for a reference.

logosres:cjbib;ref=BibleUT.Ps18.48

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287241#Comment_287241

Please check the datatype after you use Ctrl+Alt+C for a reference.

logosres:cjbib;ref=BibleUT.Ps18.48

I was hoping BibleCJB. OK I'll fix the Table.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287252#Comment_287252

I was hoping BibleCJB.

I know you were. [:D]

Is it even possible to get one abbreviation in the search window and another in the logosres reference?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287266#Comment_287266

Is it even possible to get one abbreviation in the search window and another in the logosres reference?

From Vincent's posts it would be possible to designate BibleCJB as the datatype but use the Bible (UT) map as a convenience.

EDIT: after a re-read, I doubt that as the <external title> would have to be unique as it is not a reference to another datatype.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287266#Comment_287266

Is it even possible to get one abbreviation in the search window and another in the logosres reference?

I think we can be pretty confident that the same name is given in the location, search box and Logos log (though the log says bible+xxx instead of BibleXXX). The only time it might be different is on the book's information page.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287252#Comment_287252

I was hoping BibleCJB. OK I'll fix the Table.

Dave, was there a reason why you also fixed the "Where used" name for LUTBIB1984? Or was it a typo that you took out the "s" from "Übersetzung Martin Luthers" (which translates to "Martin Luther's translation" or "translation of Martin Luther", i.e. this official title uses a genitiv form which is built in German by adding s without an apostrophe. I'm reluctant to revert you on the wiki without prior discussion, but I think the current entry is not correct.

See also my screenshot.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287351#Comment_287351

I thought it was confusing, but please revert to Luthers now that I understand.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287367#Comment_287367

I thought it was confusing, but please revert to Luthers now that I understand.

Thanks, I just put the "s" in again.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287372#Comment_287372

I just happened to come across an old thread. Seems that B2000>BL2000 isn't exactly the only one they've updated. Look at this list from Jan 2010:

The full list (subject to change without notice) includes: AFR1933, AFR1983, AKESONS, ALFNT, ARA, ARC, AT, AT2, B2000, BFC, BIBEL82, BHS, BUBER, BYZTXT, CAP, DANBIB, DANCLV, DR, DSS, EINHEIT, ELBER, ESV, GNB, GNB-NR, HB, JFA, JPS, JPS1917, KJV, LSG, LUT1912, LUT1545, LUT1984, LXX-B, LXX-R, LXX-S, LXX-S2, MENGE, NAB, NA27, NASB95, NBG, NBS, NBV, NJB, NO78-85, NKJV, NTLH, NRSV, NRSVCE, N-VUL, OSG, OTP, PESH, PESH2, RMNT, RST, RSV, RSVCE, RVR60, SCRIV, SVV, TB, TGV, TISCH, TOB, UBS4, UT, VPEE, VUL-C, VUL-W, WH, WV95

I haven't scrutinized it, but even a cursory glance made me notice LXX-B, LXX-R, LXX-S, LXX-S2, VUL-C and VUL-W. They all seem to have different names now. Interesting that they had an N-VUL even back then, when the Nova Vulgata wasn't even put on prepub until last autumn, and still isn't produced.

Vincent Setterholm

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287814#Comment_287814

N-VUL was actually one of the first Logos 4 Bible data types we made. As was LXX-S (Before we knew we were going to produce Swete's LXX). Books before 1948 tended to quote the Swete edition of the LXX, so we had problems tagging some of those references. We needed to be able to convert from Swete's edition to Rahlfs edition, even if we never produced Swete's text. Likewise, a lot of Catholic documents were being updated to follow the Nova Vulgata, and we were going to have problems tagging those documents if we didn't have a data type for the Nova Vulgata even if we never produced that text. Covering the different Vulgates and Septuagints was part of the first round of Bible data types made (along with the BHS, KJV and NRSV). The difference between the internal names and the UI titles for the Vulgates and Septuagints doesn't reflect the creation of new data types like the B2000 -> BL2000 change. Once we decided that the title of a data type in the UI could be different from the internal name, we decided to give more descriptive abbreviations to these data types.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287867#Comment_287867

N-VUL was actually one of the first Logos 4 Bible data types we made. As was LXX-S (Before we knew we were going to produce Swete's LXX). Books before 1948 tended to quote the Swete edition of the LXX, so we had problems tagging some of those references. We needed to be able to convert from Swete's edition to Rahlfs edition, even if we never produced Swete's text. Likewise, a lot of Catholic documents were being updated to follow the Nova Vulgata, and we were going to have problems tagging those documents if we didn't have a data type for the Nova Vulgata even if we never produced that text.

I really should have figured that one out by myself! After all, my original problem in the thread at MJ's forum was precisely about quotes and references in ordinary books, not about figuring out PB Bibles, which I can't see me having any need for any time soon.

The difference between the internal names and the UI titles for the Vulgates and Septuagints doesn't reflect the creation of new data types

Ah, I should have noticed the third column! [:$] I looked at the half-finished Bible Datatypes page so many times that most of the second column is fairly engraved in my memory, but once you provided the full list there was no real need to look at it again right now, so I never noticed the LXX's and Vulgates have different external and internal names. Should have thought to double-check that before I posted. [:$]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/287898#Comment_287898

Here's a first attempt at a Wiki page that contains this sort of information: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/38511.aspx

Please post any comments on the Wiki page in that thread. Thanks.

John Duffy

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/288147#Comment_288147

Here's a first attempt at a Wiki page that contains this sort of information: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/38511.aspx

Please post any comments on the Wiki page in that thread. Thanks.

This isn't a comment on that I think needs to be on that wiki page Mark, but just a note to say that that looks great. It would be a great benefit to some of us to have that for all Bible books. I encourage you to press on, as time allows.

Thanks