Dear Logos: Please stop putting "Logos Bible Software" as the publisher of existing public-domain wo

I thought this problem was going away, but it's back. The problem is public domain books having "Logos Bible Software" and their publisher, and a modern date in the year of publication. This is frustrating when the books are in fact facsimile copies of an earlier edition. When we sort by date in our library, and when we cite these works, we don't want Logos Bible Software 2010 appearing.

The most recent culprit were the Poor Man's Commentaries which were released a few weeks ago. They should be dated around 1815-16, with a publisher of London: Williams and Son (or the correct edition of 1823, London: Sherwodd, Jones, Gilbert and Piper). What's doubly annoying here is that you've stripped the publication information from the beginning of the volume!

But it's publications from 2011 and earlier that are the real problem, as there are literally hundreds of volumes such as History of the English Baptists, Calvin's Commentaries, etc.

Some works have Logos as the publisher, but the original publication date (e.g. Charles's Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament). That's better for library filtering, but it's still not OK, particularly when the library says 1913, whilst the bibliographic citation says 2004.

By the way, it's fine to have Logos as the publisher when you have done a lot of work on the volume. So Vos's Reformed Dogmatics rightly has Logos Bible Software (2013), as that's been newly translated/edited. I'm not complaining about that.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

JT (alabama24)

[Y] +1

tom

I disagree, if Logos does the work to create the electronic edition, then Logos should get the credit as the publisher of the electronic version of the work of art we are using.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514597#Comment_514597

I disagree, if Logos does the work to create the electronic edition, then Logos should get the credit as the publisher of the electronic version of the work of art we are using.

So all the books in our library should have Bellingham: Logos Bible Software (2011) in the metadata? How is that useful?

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514597#Comment_514597

I disagree, if Logos does the work to create the electronic edition, then Logos should get the credit as the publisher of the electronic version of the work of art we are using.

... But Logos doesn't get credit for books still in copyright that they create the electronic version of...

I agree with how Mark stated it. If Logos is doing something to the text, then they should be listed as the publisher... But not if they are just bringing in a public domain work "as is."

Ted Hans

Mark I'm with you on this [Y]

Ken McGuire

I more than understand why we want the original dates for works listed - I really do. But I have found in creating the personal books I have made that in transcribing from printed matter to an ebook, I have to make decisions so that it is really almost a new edition. Many times for rePRINTS of old works, there is a new publisher listed and new date as well. The better editions include the source information, too, admittedly.

Also many theological works have one publisher in one country and another in another country. So if Eerdmans (just for example) publishes a work from SPCK, is Eerdmans wrong for listing themselves as the publishers of the US edition? If that is fine, then why can't Logos do this?

SDG

Ken McGuire

Andy

In my opinion, where Logos are, in effect, digitising facsimiles of earlier editions, the original publication date and publication details should be retained.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514603#Comment_514603

I have found in creating the personal books I have made that in transcribing from printed matter to an ebook, I have to make decisions so that it is really almost a new edition

That's interesting - what sort of decisions do you make? Personally, I always try and retain exactly what is there in the original (even typos), which is Logos' normal practice, too.

Many times for rePRINTS of old works, there is a new publisher listed and new date as well.

I accept that. But we know that Logos Bible Software is the 'new publisher' (at least since 2011, or whenever it was they took over publishing), but if Logos wants to add an "Electronic Publisher" column, that's fine by me. There is already an "Electronic Publishing Date" column in the library that Logos use. (The existence of that column really does show Logos is doing it wrong if they put the electronic date in the "Publication date" column.)

Alan Macgregor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514609#Comment_514609

I take the earlier arguments on board and would like to put in my tuppence worth, for this is an issue which has caused me a fair degree of pondering and extra work in editing Logos' default citations in my own academic writing.

For me the problem arises when one cites Logos' "electronic reprints", for that is what many Logos works are, in academic papers. The whole point of citation in academic papers is that one's academic peers can refer to the original text for themselves and see how one has arrived at one's use of the citation and evaluate it properly. If that citation refers by default to the electronic version of the text, then it may be difficult for non-Logos-using academics to evaluate the citation.

For me the criterion regarding defining a work as being reprinted or published is that that former has merely been scanned and tagged with metadata, whereas publishing should imply that something more has been done to the text, for example re-editing or retranslation. If necessary the citation should follow the format of citing the print original and including the electronic edition in the initial citation of the work.

Every blessing

Alan

[Y].

It is academically unacceptable to omit the original publisher and the author in North American colleges and universities. If something is legal it does not mean it is proper. I would ask politely Logos' employees to consult standard manuals for writers (Turabian, Chicago, SBL). In sum, even a short undergraduate term paper would have been rejected without proper citation.

Reimar Vetne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514609#Comment_514609

I agree completely with you, Mark. This is a very strange and frustrating practice by Logos.

Logos already has our unconditional love and admiration. We are not in danger of forgetting to Logos our gratitude for bringing all the various resources you have into your digital library - copyrighted or public domain. I certainly am not in that danger. I am your biggest fan. Adding Logos as the publisher cannot increase my love and respect for your efforts - it is already high as it is.

For the sake of easy reference to when a book was written, and for the sake of correct citations in footnotes and bibliographies of articles and books we write, it is far more useful to have the original publication information in the records. It saves us from having to manually Google and search the internet for the original publication data.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514612#Comment_514612

[Y][Y][Y]

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514609#Comment_514609

I have found in creating the personal books I have made that in transcribing from printed matter to an ebook, I have to make decisions so that it is really almost a new edition

That's interesting - what sort of decisions do you make? Personally, I always try and retain exactly what is there in the original (even typos), which is Logos' normal practice, too.

I am a rather conservative editor for what I have created. Yet I do not worry about fonts matching. I have replaced 19th century greek which has a dipthong of upsilon above an omicron with having the upsilon afterwards since it cannot be put into unicode. So far I have retained the greek letter "stigma" in a few texts and also some long s's... But line breaks change, which means that some old notes on "line # of page #" no longer are helpful. Sometimes the footnotes in the documents I create are renumbered. Sometimes I have taken marginal headings and put them as "normal" headings. A few times I have taken scripture references from the footnotes and put them as parenthetical notes...

And yes, I retain misspellings. And duplicated words too. But sometimes the

the word is duplicated at a line break and so it is MUCH more obvious in my ebook than the original, where we often will not even notice it. I have not always been consistent with maintaining english diaeresis's. Every time I run into a word that is hyphenated at a line break, I have to figure out if I should retain or eliminate the hyphen. Usually I look to see how the word is otherwise used (is it cooperate or co-operate? preeminent or pre-eminent? post-man or postman?)

And so while I try to maintain as much as possible - even duplicate pages in one case - I have been forced to admit that I have created a new edition - however minimally "new".

SDG

Ken McGuire

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514610#Comment_514610

The whole point of citation in academic papers is that one's academic peers can refer to the original text for themselves and see how one has arrived at one's use of the citation and evaluate it properly. If that citation refers by default to the electronic version of the text, then it may be difficult for non-Logos-using academics to evaluate the citation.

I agree 100%.

Graham Owen

I agree that we need the original date of the text preserved even if means another meta data option. I have a set of collections that divide my library by date that I use with the citation tool so that I can see how peoples thinking on some texts has changed (or not) over time. Being able to do things like this is the power of the digital library but having a 2013 date on some 1813 thinking diminishes that power.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514617#Comment_514617

But sometimes the

the word is duplicated at a line break and so it is MUCH more obvious in my ebook than the original, where we often will not even notice it.

[:D]

I have replaced 19th century greek which has a dipthong of upsilon above an omicron with having the upsilon afterwards since it cannot be put into unicode

It's off-topic, but you probably know that the reason it can't be put into unicode is because it's a ligature rather than a separate grapheme. It's up to the rendering engine to handle ligatures (although you could use U+0222 Ȣ, or U+0223 ȣ, if you really wanted to reatain the 'look'), and of course we don't have that control in Personal Books.

And so while I try to maintain as much as possible - even duplicate pages in one case - I have been forced to admit that I am created a new edition - however minimally "new".

Fair enough.

David Bailey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514618#Comment_514618

The whole point of citation in academic papers is that one's academic peers can refer to the original text for themselves and see how one has arrived at one's use of the citation and evaluate it properly. If that citation refers by default to the electronic version of the text, then it may be difficult for non-Logos-using academics to evaluate the citation.

I agree 100%.

[Y]

and having the citation engine follow exactly the published standards.

Butters

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514624#Comment_514624

It seems to me reasonable that Logos puts itself as publisher. They have put the work in like any other publisher. It's akin to the various reprint publishers scattered all over Amazon - actually, come to think of it though, Logos probably puts in much more work than they do.

However, I do understand about academic citation issue as well.

Why not have two levels?

In terms of marketing and whatnot, Logos continues to stamp these books with Logos as publisher and current year and all.
HOWEVER, when you cite it, the citation automatically reflects the original rather than the Logos branded book? Obviously, Logos would have to make some changes to make this happen though.

This seems to satisfy both concerns?

~Butters [:)]

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514626#Comment_514626

Note the MLA style, which provides for (1) material gleaned from an electronic collection, as well as (2) "republished" books which are essentially facsimiles.

Me, I'm just confused by the MLA format. [:|]

fgh

I'm all with Mark on this. Logos' own info should be in the 'epub' column, not the 'pub' columns. That's why we have an epub column.

Besides the reasons already mentioned, I'd say it's also a moral issue. Logos isn't working directly from the author's manuscript, they're taking advantage of another publisher's work. The fact that they no longer have to pay that publisher doesn't free them from the moral obligation to recognize their debt to his work.

I disagree, if Logos does the work to create the electronic edition, then Logos should get the credit as the publisher of the electronic version of the work of art we are using.

The publisher of the electronic version, yes -- if we really need a column for something that obvious -- but not the publisher. That would be like an old fashioned printing press replacing the publisher's name with their own, just because they painstakingly typeset the book, letter by letter.

Also many theological works have one publisher in one country and another in another country. So if Eerdmans (just for example) publishes a work from SPCK, is Eerdmans wrong for listing themselves as the publishers of the US edition? If that is fine, then why can't Logos do this?

I can see at least two differences:

Eerdmans does hold the American rights. Logos holds no more rights than anyone else to a PD work.
At least in earlier times, Eerdmans and SPCK would have both worked directly from the manuscript, typing and typesetting their own individual copies. So their books would have been two distinct works, not in any way dependent on each other. I guess in these electronic times they may sometimes buy files from each other, but even in those cases they would normally adapt spelling and other language related things to their own and their country's standards, so the results would be more different than what a Logos edition is from the original edition.

Butters

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514642#Comment_514642

The publisher of the electronic version, yes -- if we really need a column for something that obvious -- but not the publisher.

That makes a lot of sense actually fgh - a distinction I hadn't even thought of.

Bob Pritchett

I'll invest more time in this. It's a complicated problem to solve correctly, and I'm not even sure what our current practice is -- or if it's being implemented consistently.

In the past we used the original publisher's metadata everywhere, and my understanding is that we still do when we're working from a specific paper edition. In many (earlier) cases, though, we got files which were disassociated with a specific paper edition -- typed in on the Internet, provided to us by an enthusiast, etc. In these cases, we considered it an 'electronic edition' and acted as the publisher. (As a rule of thumb, if we had page numbers, it was tied to a specific edition; if not, it wasn't.) And rarely there was a specific paper edition, but we did extra editorial work that made our electronic version not match a specific paper edition.

We were kind of obsessive about paper equivalency -- it we said it was the same book, it usually was done to every word on the title page. We've loosened up a little bit on that now.

There has been on and off discussion of 'source' and 'electronic' edition metadata being distinguished, but we haven't yet implemented that distinction. There was also (in the past) ongoing debate about the correct way to cite -- the original paper source, or the exact electronic edition / source you were using.

We'll give this more discussion, and moving forward we are planning more metadata, including our own more precise set of dates, because we want to do interesting things where we can sort results of searches, etc. by the date of the language, of the ideas, etc. (For example, is there any 'right' date for a new electronic edition of a 1950's Zondervan reprint, with new preface and notes, of an 1880's translation of a 1600's work originally written in French? If you're tracing development of doctrinal issues, the 1600's is important. If you care about the English, the 1880's. If you're citing the English translation you might want the 1880's date, or the 1950's if you're quoting the notes or preface. And what if the electronic edition integrates the errata from the 1950's edition, correcting the French in the 1950's note you're quoting? Someone checking the 1950's paper won't see a match...)

And, of course, what if you want to sort instances of use of a Greek word by frequency of use in each century, but the dates on the Greek works are the dates of the Loeb editions, not the date of composition?

So we're thinking of:

composition-date: when the ideas were recorded

composition-language: language this text is translated from, if any

translation-date: when the text was translated into this language

editorial-work: when the text was edited, notes/preface, etc. added

electronic-edition: when this text was prepared and released as this electronic edition

What do you think?

Butters

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514647#Comment_514647

Very well thought out Mr. Pritchett!

~Butters [:)]

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514647#Comment_514647

So we're thinking of:

composition-date: when the ideas were recorded

composition-language: language this text is translated from, if any

translation-date: when the text was translated into this language

editorial-work: when the text was edited, notes/preface, etc. added

electronic-edition: when this text was prepared and released as this electronic edition

What do you think?

I like the idea of all those values being available. So would "editorial work" be what would appear in the citation? Or would the citation be necessarily more complex?

William Gabriel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514647#Comment_514647

So we're thinking of:

composition-date: when the ideas were recorded

composition-language: language this text is translated from, if any

translation-date: when the text was translated into this language

editorial-work: when the text was edited, notes/preface, etc. added

electronic-edition: when this text was prepared and released as this electronic edition

What do you think?

I think that's all good, and the person/publisher/institution who gets the credit should have fields that go along with those dates.

I'm not a publishing or reference geek, so I don't know what the specific handbook rules are for all of that data. I do know that if I'm research and come across a cross-reference, I would appreciate seeing all of that data so that I have the best opportunity possible of finding originals if I choose to look them up. It's like keeping a solid chain of custody on the work.

I do see how it works for musical copyrights, which I know is going to be different requirements from other written publications, but everyone involved gets the credit due them. Original lyricists and composers, translators, persons responsible for lyric modifications or additions, arrangers publishers and any other rights holders all appear in the copyright line. It can be a pain when I have to type it out on the Powerpoint slide [:)], but it also allowed me to research music the way I'd expect to be able to research theology (or any other written ideas).

Bill

Vincent Setterholm

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514620#Comment_514620

Caveat: This is not the official Logos answer - I haven't been in our text development department for years. I'm just feeling philosophical this morning.

I picked a book off my shelf almost at random: The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by Alfred Edersheim. All it says on the copyright page is: Copyright 1993, Hendrickson. The dated prefaces could give SOME idea of when this was originally printed, but they're really just dates for when the author wrote the prefaces (1883 for the first preface and 1886 for the second), and there's no indication anywhere of the original publisher or what print version was actually digitized. But this is still sufficient information for any style guide purposes to show where you got your quotations and trace your sources. There may be some academic advisors who would want a more detailed citation, which might force you to track down old print editions and check your quotes in them, but then you'd just cite the old edition you checked, because you can't assume you know which edition Hendrickson was digitizing unless you're going to do some serious text criticism.

The Logos edition does cite Logos as the publisher in the metadata, but also reproduces the title page of the edition we digitized: the eight edition, Longmans, Green & Co. 1896 - so that's more information than Hendrickson's print edition provides. But our metadata is a little funny here - we list the publisher as Logos, but the publication date as 1896. We've been around a long time, but not that long! I'd argue that it would have been better to follow the Hendrickson example and put the date we last edited this resource in the metadata, because that's what our edition really is - the Logos Bible Software, Bellingham, WA 2000-whatever edition. (Print books also have 'printings' which might correct some typos without rolling to a new 'edition' - in this example, my Edersheim hardcover is the 7th printing from 2002 - the equivalent of that in the digital world is the timestamp in the resource information window that shows the last time we compiled the book. If we gave up the, I think misguided, notion that we should cite digital editions as if we were really working from print [Doesn't that just buy into the myth that there's something inferior about working digitally? The good news is that there is a biological solution coming that will end that notion.], including that timestamp in the citation actually makes a lot of sense, just the way style guides often require a date on web page citations, because webpage content can change.)

So back to my print example. I'm citing Edersheim, and I run into a quote about the sun going dark around the time of the crucifixion, and I read "the sun craped its brightness". Since 'craped' isn't a word I'm familiar with, I get a much more amusing anthropomorphic image and this would be a delightful opportunity for a scholarly [sic], but what am I [sic]ing? If I cite this as the 1883, 1886 or 1896 edition, I better check my source, because this might be something introduced in the 1993 (or 2002) edition I'm actually using. It's just safer to cite what you're really using rather than pretending you're working from something else. [The Logos edition, and I assume the 8th printed edition, has 'draped', BTW. But you'd run into the same trap if you were [sic]ing something we introduced as if you were working from the print.]

Obviously, it is possible to provide longer citations with more information, if you have it. It'd be impossible to do with my particular hardcover Hendrickson edition, because the print doesn't have enough information, but citations of digital editions could go something like: Edersheim, Alfred, "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah". Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2000 [version 2010-11-16T22:09:22Z], from 8th print edition, New York: Longman, Green & Co.,1896. This doesn't actually 'solve' the problem of sorting on when the author was writing [what was Edersheim's involvement in the 8th edition? Maybe the last time he touched it was 1886. And what if we digitized the Hendrickson edition? Then the right 'print' source to cite would be Hendrickson 1993, 7th printing 2002, not Longman, Green & Co. 1883, 1886 or 1896]. But despite not letting one sort on something like 'when was Edersheim actually writing these thoughts' [which would be hard to produce, but perhaps an approximation could be stored in another piece of metadata that isn't used in citations], I suspect this type of full citation is really the only thing that will make academics really happy while not pretending to be working from editions that we aren't. Some variation on this would be better for modern copyrighted works, too, for all the same reasons. For political reasons, maybe we couldn't CALL ourselves the publisher (but I might be wrong there - when SBL reprints a Brill book in paperback for US distribution, they get to list themselves as the publisher, while also noting the original publisher in the copyright statement, so maybe this is perfectly normal). But that's not insurmountable, you just go with something like: Edersheim, Alfred, "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah". Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993 [7th printing 2002], digital edition: Logos Bible Software, Bellingham, WA 2000 [version 2010-11-16T22:09:22Z].

But, as previously noted by others on this thread, we don't make facsimile editions. OK, we've made a handful, but mostly these are new editions in at least the same was that the Hendrickson 1993 Edersheim is new, and often in more significant ways. My example so far was just an innocuous typo, but we make improvements as well. Say our compiler throws an error that Psalm 11:91 is not a real Bible verse, and we take a look and it's obvious that the author meant Psalm 119:1. We could just fix the tagging but leave the typo, but we'd eventually get typo reports on this and processing those has a cost and we still have to decide what to do with the report (fix it, not fix it?). If we're pretending to be the print edition, this is a problem. If we all stop pretending, we just fix it. If it's a modern work, we let the publisher know so that future print editions can be corrected as well [maybe we wait for approval, maybe not, depending on the nature of the correction and the contract/relationship with the publisher], and they love us for our attention to detail, and no one has to worry about a missed [sic] because we're all citing the digital edition.

Vincent Setterholm

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514655#Comment_514655

Doh! I see while I was busy rambling that Bob already replied.

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514647#Comment_514647

What do you think?

Great! Thanks for taking the time to respond thoughtfully. May I cite you? [:D]

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514656#Comment_514656

I see while I was busy rambling that Bob already replied.

Nevertheless your text was to the point - and put some much needed caveat to the "faithfully reproducing the typos from the print edition" idea, which IMHO limits the usefulness of electronic works (same goes for long S, ligatures and other fancy typographical stuff, unless the search engine can handle those transparently).

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514656#Comment_514656

Thanks for the detailed replies. I appreciate that there are differences between editions, that complicate this (but that's true of printed, not just electronic editions).

To keep it simple, I think the principle should be that the publication data in the library metadata matches the information in the front of the resource. If there's no date in the front of the resource, use www.worldcat.org to find out what the date should be (after all, that's what someone writing a paper will do).

If you're producing a copy of a copy, then you should use the earliest details where the pagination and typesetting match the copy you have. So, a 2008 Banner of Truth reprint of an 1874 edition should be dated 1874 if the pagination/typesetting haven't changed, or 2008 if it has. An original publication date would be useful in the latter case (when citing, this would normally be written as 2008 [1874]).

The point is that it I cite it as 1874, then someone with the 2008 edition will know whether the page numbers are the same (because his 2008 edition will make that clear). But if I cite it as 2008, then then guy with the 1874 edition will think his edition doesn't match, when it fact it might.

That said, I think one of the biggest problems is that the existing standards aren't being adhered to - and the Poor Man's Commentary is an example of that. Consistently adhering to the existing standards would be a good start, IMO.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514655#Comment_514655

But, as previously noted by others on this thread, we don't make facsimile editions. OK, we've made a handful, but mostly these are new editions in at least the same was that the Hendrickson 1993 Edersheim is new, and often in more significant ways. My example so far was just an innocuous typo, but we make improvements as well. Say our compiler throws an error that Psalm 11:91 is not a real Bible verse, and we take a look and it's obvious that the author meant Psalm 119:1. We could just fix the tagging but leave the typo, but we'd eventually get typo reports on this and processing those has a cost and we still have to decide what to do with the report (fix it, not fix it?). If we're pretending to be the print edition, this is a problem. If we all stop pretending, we just fix it. If it's a modern work, we let the publisher know so that future print editions can be corrected as well [maybe we wait for approval, maybe not, depending on the nature of the correction and the contract/relationship with the publisher], and they love us for our attention to detail, and no one has to worry about a missed [sic] because we're all citing the digital edition.

I think this is a slight red-herring as print books are often reprinted with very minor corrections, that don't justify a new edition. In those cases, scholars will still cite the earlier date, not the date of the minor corrections. On the other hand, if the publisher declares that this is a new edition (substantial changes, new chapters, etc.), then scholars will cite the new date. Generally speaking, although there are very occasionally some grey areas, that system works perfectly well.

Anon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514624#Comment_514624

The whole point of citation in academic papers is that one's academic peers can refer to the original text for themselves and see how one has arrived at one's use of the citation and evaluate it properly. If that citation refers by default to the electronic version of the text, then it may be difficult for non-Logos-using academics to evaluate the citation.

I agree 100%.

and having the citation engine follow exactly the published standards.

[Y][Y]

Philip Larson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514597#Comment_514597

I agree with Mark.

If the original publisher released it in 1810 (or whatever), I'd like to see that along with the original publisher. If I go to a nearby seminary library and find the original, I would like to be able to know they are the same.

I have no problem if it also says that Logos Bible Software republished it in 2013 (or whenever).

Mike Childs

[Y][Y] What Mark said!

Tom Reynolds

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514829#Comment_514829

Here, here! or is it Hear Hear! or H'ear H'ear!

Unix

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514647#Comment_514647

I think Butters's idea is the best and necessary for books whit no significant editing by Logos. (Significant editing would be things like change of English dialect, quotes when there were only line pointers in the original. "Insignificant" editing would be routine correction of spelling errors, addition of page numbers to an electronic copy).

It would be good to have an extra citation option in some future version of Logos as a functionality that You would have to pay extra for that would insert the time stamp of the Logos Edition from the disk:

Why not have two levels?
In terms of marketing and whatnot, Logos continues to stamp these books with Logos as publisher and current year and all.

HOWEVER, when you cite it, the citation automatically reflects the original rather than the Logos branded book? Obviously, Logos would have to make some changes to make this happen though.

This seems to satisfy both concerns?

Bob, all that would be really valuable, to some, well perhaps many. Other's might have reference works or academic books where they could look up most of that data and then add it manually. And most haven't expected this and wouldn't want to pay extra costs included in the SKU price when doing further purchases. The only thing I think everyone would be happy about, would be to get this information for their current books that have already been acquired.
I would suggest that Logos charges extra for that, in two different ways: when a customer that has the SKU goes to the product page, he/she would be able to pay an extra fee - whereby this additional data would be downloaded for that particular book/set/collection. And the other way of charging for it would be a "subscription" that would automatically charge that fee for all books that have been either bought at any point or purchased for $0 in the users library, and would continue to charge the additional fee for new purchases for as long as the subscription would be valid. All this may sound a bit complicated when hearing it for the first time but it's pretty straight-forward when You think about it:

So we're thinking of:
composition-date: when the ideas were recorded

composition-language: language this text is translated from, if any

translation-date: when the text was translated into this language

editorial-work: when the text was edited, notes/preface, etc. added

electronic-edition: when this text was prepared and released as this electronic edition

What do you think?

Unix

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514655#Comment_514655

In that case I think the Logos Desktop Software citation engine should add in the citation something like this: [reference(s) corrected by Logos Edition] upon quoting text that has corrections:

Say our compiler throws an error that Psalm 11:91 is not a real Bible verse, and we take a look and it's obvious that the author meant Psalm 119:1. We could just fix the tagging but leave the typo, but we'd eventually get typo reports on this and processing those has a cost and we still have to decide what to do with the report (fix it, not fix it?).

EDIT: I did not read Vincent's post other than the first couple of rows when writing my previous post from 4:58 AM, he mentioned something like this:

It would be good to have an extra citation option in some future version of Logos as a functionality that You would have to pay extra for that would insert the time stamp of the Logos Edition

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514647#Comment_514647

There has been on and off discussion of 'source' and 'electronic' edition metadata being distinguished, but we haven't yet implemented that distinction.

Not sure what you mean by that, as it looks pretty implemented to me (just not consistently):

moving forward we are planning more metadata, including our own more precise set of dates, because we want to do interesting things where we can sort results of searches, etc. by the date of the language, of the ideas, etc. (...)
So we're thinking of:

composition-date: when the ideas were recorded

composition-language: language this text is translated from, if any

translation-date: when the text was translated into this language

editorial-work: when the text was edited, notes/preface, etc. added

electronic-edition: when this text was prepared and released as this electronic edition

[Y][Y][Y][Y][Y]

our metadata is a little funny here - we list the publisher as Logos, but the publication date as 1896. We've been around a long time, but not that long! I'd argue that it would have been better to follow the Hendrickson example and put the date we last edited this resource in the metadata, because that's what our edition really is

Then you'll be glad to know that the metadata is less "funny" than you think[;)]:

Say our compiler throws an error that Psalm 11:91 is not a real Bible verse, and we take a look and it's obvious that the author meant Psalm 119:1. (...) (fix it, not fix it?)

Suggestion: do both! Let the normal reader see only the correct text, but add a Show typos in the original Visual Filter, which, when checked, would make the text look something like "... [Psalm 11:91] Psalm 119:1 ...". This would:

Solve the problem with things not showing up in searches because of a typo.
Solve the Academic need for exact quotes.
Give you fewer typo reports.

I think the principle should be that the publication data in the library metadata matches the information in the front of the resource. If there's no date in the front of the resource, use www.worldcat.org to find out what the date should be (...)
If you're producing a copy of a copy, then you should use the earliest details where the pagination and typesetting match the copy you have.

[Y] (for now)

That said, I think one of the biggest problems is that the existing standards aren't being adhered to - and the Poor Man's Commentary is an example of that. Consistently adhering to the existing standards would be a good start, IMO.

[Y]

print books are often reprinted with very minor corrections, that don't justify a new edition. In those cases, scholars will still cite the earlier date, not the date of the minor corrections.

I don't know about the US, but in Sweden the year in the citation is very frequently the printing year (at least it used to be).

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514647#Comment_514647

So we're thinking of:

composition-date: when the ideas were recorded

composition-language: language this text is translated from, if any

translation-date: when the text was translated into this language

editorial-work: when the text was edited, notes/preface, etc. added

electronic-edition: when this text was prepared and released as this electronic edition

Sounds good, but original publisher is always a good thing to have opening to copyright page of a book by Fleming H Revell Company Publishers

Originally published in the UK by Hunt and Thorpe

Having this in would works well I think.. for example

Lange, J. P., Schaff, P., Zöckler, O., & Murphy, J. G. (2008). A commentary on the Holy Scriptures: 1 & 2 Chronicles. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software. Originally published New York, Charles Scriber's Sons

PS: Publication date would be nice too… I only saw the date of the german original not the publication date for the translation.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514841#Comment_514841

Here, here! or is it Hear Hear! or H'ear H'ear!

Sic.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/515678#Comment_515678

As a reply to Bob, I have a suggestion.

In the realm of Biblical Studies publishing, Logos is becoming and in many respects already is a major player. Precisely because they are an electronic publisher, they are also in that cutting edge area of the current dynamic. Therefore, my suggestion is that Logos should take the time and energy to produce a new comprehensive publishing style that incorporates all of the concerns that have been voiced in this thread. Logos could even produce a manual of style such as Chicago, APA, Turabian, etc., which could be more complete than what has been produced to this point. In any citation, I personally want to know when the work was first produced, even if that was 514 BCE, even if that can be no more accurately determined than "circa". What I'm suggesting, in concert with the half dozen or so options Bob outlined, is a comprehensive citation method that might, at times, produce citations as long as this paragraph, although that would be rare. So be it.

This would be a chance for Logos to plant its flag, so to speak. One day, profs might say, "I want you to use Logos style for your bibliographies." [:)]

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/515696#Comment_515696

In the realm of Biblical Studies publishing, Logos is becoming and in many respects already is a major player. Precisely because they are an electronic publisher, they are also in that cutting edge area of the current dynamic. Therefore, my suggestion is that Logos should take the time and energy to produce a new comprehensive publishing style that incorporates all of the concerns that have been voiced in this thread.

Fascinating suggestion. I like this idea.