Pseudepigrapha references problem

I just bought Charlesworth's edition and the problem is the same. Testament of Naphtali 2:1 is referenced as T. Naph. 2.1 (spaces as I have written them). I tried that and it is not recognized and hyperlinked. I removed spaces and tried variations with no success.

Allen Browne said:

Is it realistic to expect Logos to auto-recognize references to the books of the OT Pseudepigrapha? And the NT Pseudepigrapha? And the church fathers? And the Dead Sea Scrolls (where Notes hyperlinks Col 2 as Colossians 2 rather than Column 2 of the scroll)? And Calvin's Institutes? And ...?

Yes ABSOLUTELY! This is after all the frequent argument advanced to defend the pricing of Logos books versus their printed counterparts (the metadata and the integration between resources and how time consuming it is to put it together). I understand that there may be problems of standardization for the references of works (example DSS documents that are variously named). But surely -- I hope -- there must be some reference databases that are made to avoid confusion? Perhaps I am mistaken but I would like to think that places like Yale, Cambridge, Oxford and other bastions of Bible research must NOT be spending time wondering whether references in publications are to Colossians or Column 2 of a scroll (I know however of no scroll that are just referenced by their scroll number and no other identifier). 

It is true that there are reference abbreviations that are the same in different disciplines and it is context that helps the reader know which one is intended. But in the field of biblical studies, one would think there should not be competing reference abbreviations. But do correct me if I am mistaken and provide a few examples for my sake and perhaps that of others in my shoes. 

Today, "Wisdom of Solomon {chapter #}.{verse #} worked in annotations. I wished something like Wis Sol 2.1 would work or perhaps there is something like it that does work. If so, is there a list somewhere of the abbreviations that work in Logos? If not, it could be a good wiki project...

Moses I. 32 (as Philo's Life of Moses is referenced in The Works of Philo) does not work. 

Sleiman said:

Is there a neat way where in a place that I expect a link and there isn't that I create one myself?

1. Select the text in the resource window.

2. From the drop down menu, click on "Copy location as: URL".

3. In your annotation window, select the text to be hyperlinked (for instance Wis Sol 2.1), click on the icon that looks like a chain in the top right of the window, paste and enter.

Today, I entered a reference from Josephus (collected works, Jewish Wars). I typed it exactly as it appears in the resource: "War of the Jews 2.125". Logos did not recognize it.

Hi Mark, I understand your reasoning but do find it faulty on a couple counts.

First, as far as the work it would take, this is no greater undertaking than tagging any resource with metadata. Looking back at all the tagging that has been done already, one could have very well said beforehand that it was too large an undertaking. Yes, I concur it will take work but I am persuaded that this kind of tagging is precisely what makes Logos valuable.

Second, I agree that there is potential for false positives and issues with standardization. However, this is already the case with Bible references. Matthew for instance, is commonly abbreviated as Mt, Mat, Matt. Logos can standardize its own database of references and provide users access to that scheme so that everyone knows what to use. Some of it already exists anyway since when one enters a note on a versified resource, it is entered in the annotation file with a reference which is recognized by Logos as pointing back to that resource and passage.

Thank you then for your input, though I must disagree with it and still think my request more than justified.