Somehow I missed this new feature TYPE:SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

This is great. Now all the Systematic Theology books are able to be sorted in the library by Type:Systematic Theology.

I appreciate the further division of the monograph category as it is certainly the catch all of the library. (as mentioned here)

Thanks Faithlife!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Kevin Olson

I wonder why Berkhof's Systematic Theology is labeled as a mongraph?

Phil Gons (Logos)

This actually shipped in 6.5, but we're just now getting the resource metadata updated. There are additional types planned.

Phil Gons (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770764#Comment_770764

I wonder why Berkhof's Systematic Theology is labeled as a monograph?

My guess is that you caught us in the middle of updating the resource metadata and that we haven't gotten to all of them yet.

Kevin Olson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770767#Comment_770767

I wonder why Berkhof's Systematic Theology is labeled as a monograph?

My guess is that you caught us in the middle of updating the resource metadata and that we haven't gotten to all of them yet.

Thank you for that clarification. I really appreciate it!

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770766#Comment_770766

This actually shipped in 6.5, but we're just now getting the resource metadata updated. There are additional types planned.

Phil,

Whilst I understand some of the reasons for this change, strategic changes to metadata should be communicated much more clearly to users (and perhaps even discussed explicitly in advance). Many of us rely on Logos metadata to create collections, which in turn drive large parts of our study.

If you make changes that break our collection rules, we need to know what they are, so we can adjust accordingly. It's particularly important if you're breaking resources out of type:monograph, as we've historically used that as a catch all, and it looks like we won't be able to do that any more.

GregW

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770788#Comment_770788

If you make changes that break our collection rules, we need to know what they are, so we can adjust accordingly. It's particularly important if you're breaking resources out of type:monograph, as we've historically used that as a catch all, and it looks like we won't be able to do that any more.

[Y]

John Goodman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770793#Comment_770793

The transition will be difficult for collections because the change doesn't affect all relevant resources at the same time. Eg. my Barth, Church Dogmatics was updated last week but is still in the 'Monographs' section.

JohnB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770788#Comment_770788

Many of us rely on Logos metadata to create collections,

[Y]

Yasmin Stephen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770788#Comment_770788

If you make changes that break our collection rules, we need to know what they are, so we can adjust accordingly. It's particularly important if you're breaking resources out of type:monograph, as we've historically used that as a catch all, and it looks like we won't be able to do that any more.

Strong agreement here!!. It's not only my collection rules but all my Logos resources are now duplicated in my Calibre library (mostly so I don't end up inadvertently buying a resource I already own in a different format) and, while doing some library maintenance last night, I was hard-pressed to figure out why some of my type counts in Calibre weren't matching up with Logos'. It was then I discovered the Systematic Theology type. Knowing beforehand would've saved me some time and trouble. My appreciation at the discovery of this new type was a little dimmed when I realized it was the reason for all the extra work I'd had to put in to fix my counts.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770766#Comment_770766

This actually shipped in 6.5, but we're just now getting the resource metadata updated. There are additional types planned.

Subjects should be carefully reviewed for relevance e.g. many with the new type do not have Theology as a subject. Conversely, there are many books with Theology in their Subjects that are not relevant to "theology".

John Fidel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770788#Comment_770788

Phil,

Whilst I understand some of the reasons for this change, strategic changes to metadata should be communicated much more clearly to users (and perhaps even discussed explicitly in advance). Many of us rely on Logos metadata to create collections, which in turn drive large parts of our study.

If you make changes that break our collection rules, we need to know what they are, so we can adjust accordingly. It's particularly important if you're breaking resources out of type:monograph, as we've historically used that as a catch all, and it looks like we won't be able to do that any more.

Mark you make a good point. I opened my library in detail view, clicked on "mytag" heading and then shift clicked on "type" to compare what has been changed and how I have tagged certain resources. It will be relatively easy to determine how I want to change my tagging as a result. Collections can be a bit trickier if for example they break up the Type:Bible Commentaries into the larger categories as shown on Logos.com base packages.

Personally I have tagged my entire library and then use those to create collections rather than type, but it will be a problem for many that use dynamic collections. My suggestion (which I cannot locate currently) was to create a category section in the library that agrees with Logos.com rather than change type. This would avoid breaking collections, but still allow for those that have not tagged or created collections to use Logos in a more targeted way. I understand why they would not want more headings in the library and how this approach will work for many users.

James Taylor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770766#Comment_770766

There are additional types planned.

While I understand the concerns regarding collection rules, and do agree that communication needs to be better on this type of change, I'm still looking forward to breaking up this massive catch all in my library with more sensible categories. Just help us in the meantime with knowing what's coming and how we should be modifying our collections.

Thanks Phil

James Taylor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770808#Comment_770808

as shown on Logos.com base packages.

I would especially appreciate a biblical studies category for all the academic monographs, since it's very difficult to catch all these without tagging the entire library (which I'm aware many have done, but I haven't).

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770815#Comment_770815

I would especially appreciate a biblical studies category for all the academic monographs, since it's very difficult to catch all these without tagging the entire library (which I'm aware many have done, but I haven't).

It's highly unlikely that Logos will change the resource type to be a subject or category. It will always by the type of resource. They might add types such as sermons, translations of ancient manuscripts, commentaries on ancient manuscripts, etc., but it would be a major departure (and a big mistake IMO) to use the type field for subject tagging.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770808#Comment_770808

...it will be a problem for many that use dynamic collections.

I suspect that once we get used to it, it will actually make it easier to create focused dynamic collections by reducing the number of times you need to exclude works that are of a completely different type than the collection is intended to capture.

John Fidel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770836#Comment_770836

EastTN, I agree. It will really help those that have not done any tagging and struggle with collections. I took the time to tag my library and create useful collections, many just do not have the time. There are collections you can download from Faithlife, but if Logos has already categorized their books for Logos.com, why not make this available to their users. We can always tweak it, but at least it is a starting point.

John Fidel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770841#Comment_770841

Here is my original suggestion and reasoning for it:

https://community.logos.com/forums/t/99387.aspx

James Taylor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770841#Comment_770841

It will really help those that have not done any tagging and struggle with collections

Agreed

if Logos has already categorized their books for Logos.com, why not make this available to their users. We can always tweak it, but at least it is a starting point.

Agreed [Y]

I'm just suggesting that the way they display the resources on their website for the base packages would be helpful if it also showed in our libraries that way

James Taylor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770845#Comment_770845

https://community.logos.com/forums/t/99387.aspx

Thanks John I hadn't seen your post but that is precisely what I was thinking as well.

Phil Gons (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770788#Comment_770788

This actually shipped in 6.5, but we're just now getting the resource metadata updated. There are additional types planned.

Phil,

Whilst I understand some of the reasons for this change, strategic changes to metadata should be communicated much more clearly to users (and perhaps even discussed explicitly in advance). Many of us rely on Logos metadata to create collections, which in turn drive large parts of our study.

If you make changes that break our collection rules, we need to know what they are, so we can adjust accordingly. It's particularly important if you're breaking resources out of type:monograph, as we've historically used that as a catch all, and it looks like we won't be able to do that any more.

Good call, Mark. I'll make sure we better coordinate these with you all in the future.

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770767#Comment_770767

I wonder why Berkhof's Systematic Theology is labeled as a monograph?

My guess is that you caught us in the middle of updating the resource metadata and that we haven't gotten to all of them yet.

Is this being worked on? I still have several significant systematics that are still tagged as monograph:

Is it just my installation that has this problem? I'm pretty sure all of these should be type "Systematic Theology". Or did Calvin and Berkhof (and others) really get overlooked in this process?

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/780881#Comment_780881

I wonder why Berkhof's Systematic Theology is labeled as a monograph?

My guess is that you caught us in the middle of updating the resource metadata and that we haven't gotten to all of them yet.

Is this being worked on? I still have several significant systematics that are still tagged as monograph

I hope it is worked on to bring some consistency to it - and in order to do that, we would need to be able to compile PBs as type Systematic Theology as well (and to put in the respective fields).

James Taylor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/780881#Comment_780881

Is this being worked on? I still have several significant systematics that are still tagged as monograph

To make matters even more confusing, when I received the latest volumes that were completed from the Systematic Theologies Feature Expansion Collection, they came through as monographs. If those resources were built from the ground up, long after this new library type was created, why would they ship as monograph?

David Taylor, Jr.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/780891#Comment_780891

Is this being worked on? I still have several significant systematics that are still tagged as monograph

To make matters even more confusing, when I received the latest volumes that were completed from the Systematic Theologies Feature Expansion Collection, they came through as monographs. If those resources were built from the ground up, long after this new library type was created, why would they ship as monograph?

Unless I missed something, not all of those resources were built from the ground up after the dataset came out.

James Taylor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/780893#Comment_780893

not all of those resources were built from the ground up after the dataset came out.

Correct, but these volumes were. They were just released Thursday for the first time. All the volumes that were marked * were not previously sold in Logos when this collection came out, and there were several

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/780891#Comment_780891

If those resources were built from the ground up, long after this new library type was created, why would they ship as monograph?

Not just new resources. I have a book titled "Systematic Theology" (Berkhof), which is "one of the most important and widely-used systematic theologies", but it is still type:monograph!

I don't trust this new type nor subject:theology, and still rely on my own tagging together with title:.

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/781005#Comment_781005

still rely on my own tagging together

Me too. I'm sure that they will fix this soon.

Kyle G. Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/781064#Comment_781064

We're still in the process of updating the enormous backlog of titles that were classified as text.monograph that could be now text.monograph.systematic-theology. Knowing what I know about resource types, I assume I think I'll hit a finishing point but this work will probably be never fully finished. This is due to the fact that our library is vast and there will always be borderline cases that will be later brought to our attention.
I went ahead and updated the titles pointed out here (as well as a few dozen others).
It's important to remember that--for a variety of reasons--resources are produced according to the production standards at the time a resource went into production. For cases where there is a new resource-type this means there may be titles that when production began they would have been classified as a monograph but if they began production today they would be a systematic theology. Thankfully, updating something like this is fairly trivial and can be changed easily if its brought to our attention.

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/782300#Comment_782300

I went ahead and updated the titles pointed out here (as well as a few dozen others).

Thank you very much.

Could you also update the four volumes of Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics? (Not to be confused with Vos' Reformed Dogmatics). They're still monographs. I mentioned them in my earlier post but you may have missed them.

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/782315#Comment_782315

Thanks Kyle for giving this your attention.