Logos CNTTS implementation

I've been a bit disappointed by the Logos implementation of the CNTTS. I now have the CNTTS in both BW9 and Logos 6. The former's implementation is fantastic. Unfortunately, Logos seems to treat the CNTTS like any other book, meaning that the searchability does not fulfill the potential of the CNTTS. I am hoping that Logos will improve this in time. For now, it is a minimally helpful addition to my Logos library. If we gained the CNTTS search abilities found in other software, Logos would blow the competition away in terms of text critical tools.

Has anyone else be disappointed in this?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Clint Cozier

I would concur that I vastly prefer the CNTTS functionality in BW and find the Logos version underwhelming in its current form. Yet another reason why I can't let go of an old trusted friend that I've used for years.

Don Awalt

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/651959#Comment_651959

What are you able to do in BW9 with CNTSS?

Derrick Pemberton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/651961#Comment_651961

You can do amazing searches, which you cannot possibly do with the same accuracy in Logos. I'll just recommend you Google about it, as I'm not sure what I can post here.

Nevertheless, if Logos ever improves their CNTTS implementation, it will be difficult to beat their text critical tools.

Nathan Parker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/651969#Comment_651969

How does the Logos edition compare to the Accordance edition?

Kenneth Neighoff

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/652352#Comment_652352

I am not able to locate the post right now, but Dave Hooton, has given examples of how to search the CNTTS within Logos.

I will keep trying to locate it, and provide a link to it.

Derrick Pemberton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/652352#Comment_652352

Nathan, I don't know much about the accordance version, though I think it looks like it is closer the the bw implementation in strength.

kenneth, I would love to see the video, but I'm quite certain it won't offer much, at least when compared with other versions of the cntts. I'm just not sure why they seem to have treated it like any other book.

Bob Pritchett

We used to write custom code and user interface for every resource that could use it. (Logos 1.x, in the early 1990s.) Later, we started to standardize our search and resource display so that we could scale up to thousands of books without having thousands of buttons, custom dialog boxes, etc.

We did try to build as powerful and flexible a generic system as we could (fields, visual filters, etc.) and we occasionally did create a special resource type for really distinct resources (syntactic graphs).

Now, with our interactives, we're finally in a place where we can start to have the best of both worlds: a powerful, flexible, but reasonably generic resource engine PLUS highly specialized tools tuned to specific problems / tasks / resources. (See Psalm Explorer, or Hebrew Cantillations, for example.)

Now is the time to start telling us what specific behavior and capabilities you want, and we'll be able to start designing for that.

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/652854#Comment_652854

I have not seen other implementations and that might be good, because then it might be possible to invent something new.

I would like to see the verse and a list of reconstructed verses: different variants shown within full verses.

The variant reading should be highlighted for example with a color.

Derrick Pemberton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/652854#Comment_652854

Bob,

It would be great, at least for me, if this was improved over time. I would probably drop BW altogether at that point. If we could have the same CNTTS search capabilities in Logos as we find in BW, then I would be more than satisfied--I would be thrilled. I'll just give a list of examples that are provided by the "other software":

Finding lines/variants with a specific MS (This can basically be done in Logos, though I'm not sure how accurately. For example, the "other software" returns 75,621 results in a search for the SBL, while Logos returns 75,739. Some of this difference may be due to one version being more updated than the other. However, another cause is the fact that Logos will return results from every section of the document, not just the apparatus. All of the introductory material is included in the search, resulting in somewhat--however minutely--inaccurate results.)
Find lines/variants with both of two specific MSS (As far as I can tell, this cannot be done well at all in Logos. Since the CNTTS is treated as any ordinary book would be, you are restricted to using proximity in these searches. Sometimes you cannot know how many MSS will lie between those that you are looking for in a single variant. Sometimes it can be many! Therefore, in order to catch all of the occurrences of these MSS together, you must allow for so much space between them that you may get many false positives. These results simply cannot be trusted.)
Finding lines/variants with at least one of two specific MSS (Since we can't seem to search by variant, it seems that a search like this would often be horribly inaccurate in Logos. This applies to the other bullet points as well.)
Finding lines with Significant variation and a specific MSS (Same problems as those above.)
Finding lines tagged with X or with O (This will also draw a few results from areas other than the apparatus, as well as suffering from some other inaccuracies.)
Finding lines tagged with a specific MS and tagged with either X or with O (This search will be even more inaccurate than some of the previous ones.)
Finding lines tagged with a specific MS or tagged with either X or with O
Finding lines citing one and only one specific MS
Finding lines citing one specific MS, but not another specific MS

The useful examples could, obviously be multiplied. I believe that all of these examples could be quite easily performed in the other implementations of the CNTTS in major software. Most of the problems with the Logos implementation seem to stem from the fact that the CNTTS is treated like any common book. As a result, we can't search by variants. This, in my opinion, is a fatal flaw, and not exactly what the CNTTS was created for.

An somewhat unrelated gripe I have is that there isn't enough information available to us concerning the CNTTS. Their website isn't very helpful here. What criteria do they use when choosing which MSS to add next? Why are some MSS listed in the "Global Manuscript List" not to be found in the apparatus itself? Is there any bias, methodological or otherwise, toward a certain texttype? Etc.

Finally, it would be great if there were links from the MS indicators in the Logos CNTTS to the MSS that are found in our Logos libraries, or available in the INFT. It would be awesome if we could click on a Codex Sinaiticus or MT variant in the CNTTS and be taken to that location in the relevant resources in our library.

I'm sure I will soon think of other capabilities that I would like which aren't even found in other software that have the CNTTS. I'll let you know if I do. Thanks for listening!

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/653009#Comment_653009

[Y] Go for gold!

Derrick Pemberton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/653009#Comment_653009

In all fairness to Logos, their version of the CNTTS seems much easier to view while browsing than the BW version.

Fr Devin Roza

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/653016#Comment_653016

Go for gold!

[Y]

Both enabling advanced searching, as well as some sort of resource (interactive?) that allows a virtual reconstruction of textual differences between manuscripts based on this tool would be incredibly useful.

GregW

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/654745#Comment_654745

Go for gold!

Both enabling advanced searching, as well as some sort of resource (interactive?) that allows a virtual reconstruction of textual differences between manuscripts based on this tool would be incredibly useful.

I agree - I don't currently have the CNTTS apparatus - the price means it has to be a planned, rather than an impulse buy. I would like to see some functionality in Logos that does connect the apparatus in the NA28, SBL and CNTTS to make it easier to compare and contrast them, and to facilitate the various reconstructions that are mentioned above. Given some of the comments others are making in the forums about the "common user" that is probably not base package functionality, but could really be something that could be sold in a similar way to the Original Languages Library.

BKMitchell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/654776#Comment_654776

Given some of the comments others are making in the forums about the "common user" that is probably not base package functionality, but could really be something that could be sold in a similar way to the Original Languages Library.

No, thank you![:@]

Are you aware that Biblical Language library is now only sold to academia? I bought the OL Logos 4 library when anyone could acquire it, but since version 5 of Logos (Now version 6) that library is not sold to anyone other than academia or those who are able to afford the portfolio library.

So, if some advanced from of the CNTTS were only sold that way I think that would turn more the independent Language scholars and serious students of Scripture (the Ad fontes kind) away from Logos!

Derrick Pemberton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/654868#Comment_654868

Another thing: we need to be able to limit our CNTTS searches by book or passage.

Fr Devin Roza

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/656043#Comment_656043

Another thing: we need to be able to limit our CNTTS searches by book or passage.

This is possible with Logos or Verbum 6. For example, you can search for:

P1 WITHIN {Milestone <Bible Matthew 2:1-10>}

Fr Devin Roza

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/657230#Comment_657230

If there is any resource out there where it would be worthwhile for Logos to build a special tool to interact with it, I would suggest that it is the CNTTS.

The goal of this resource is to include absolutely every variation in the NT Manuscripts. In that sense it is the ultimate Textual Criticism tool.

But to be able to really take advantage of what it has to offer, we need a better implementation of the tool. BW9 did a fantastic job with this, and there are probably other ways it could be done as well.

For example, consider the following image, taken from R. Swanson's "New Testament Greek Manuscripts" (http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/books_ntgm.aspx)... which, by the way, it would be great to have in Verbum:

These are the manuscript variants for John 14:8, lined up to make seeing the differences easy. On the right hand are a list of the manuscripts where the variant is found. Underlined are the parts that differ. The "base" manuscript is the Codex Vaticanus, and all the other manuscripts are compared to this one. A nice overview of how this book works is found here: http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v01/Swanson1996rev.html

In theory something like this should be able to be built based on the data in the CNTTS. If done correctly, one could even switch the "base" manuscript around, so that instead of Codex Vaticanus you use, say, Codex Sinaiticus as your base text.

Now, how awesome would that be as a feature seller for Logos and Verbum 7?

Apart from that, analyses like this should be possible: http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/wie/pub/Analysis-PCA.html

None of this would be easy to implement, but it's hard to imagine a resource that has more merit to make a custom implementation, interactive resources, etc.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/657232#Comment_657232

Now, how awesome would that be as a feature seller for Logos and Verbum 7?

AWESOME. And, I suspect, not beyond the reach of the geniuses at Logos.

GregW

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/657232#Comment_657232

I agree with Fr Devin on this, and would also like to see a couple of other features:

A visual representation of the variants by text family (Alexandrian, Byzantine, Latin)
A visual representation of the chronology of the variants as well.
Possibly something that splits out the different manuscript types (uncials, papyri, etc) more visually as well.

I only got CNTTS today (using my $50 L6 credit!), and I know I can get all this information by hovering over the individual manuscripts, but a "text explorer" from this underlying data would be a fantastic benefit when looking at variants, saving me filling in the "textual variants sheet" that I use to identify the factors I've mentioned above. Having switched fully to Logos when BW8 came out, I'm afraid I don't know what the other company did in their implementation. I think the key with this incredibly useful data is probably to present it in as visual a manner as possible, which is what Fr Devin was pointing towards above.

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/657232#Comment_657232

These are the manuscript variants for John 14:8, lined up to make seeing the differences easy.

[Y]

Then just color code the manuscript acronyms for Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine, then you'll have the leading product and happy users!