Attn Hayley Price (Faithlife): Theology as a Subject category.

The debate on the new metadata type "Systematic Theology" highlights the metadata issue I raised some time ago, and your recent response therein.

Now we have the issue of consistency because all type:"Systematic Theology" should have "Theology" as a subject and conversely, those with Subject:Theology should also have type:"Systematic Theology" ...

Currently my rule for the Theology collection is:-

title:(Theolog, Doctrine, Atonement) OR mytag:Theology

because I can't trust subject:theology.

Can I now trust type:theology (accepting that there is more tagging to be done by FL)?

Perhaps you need to refine "theology" in subjects. It currently embraces 99 of my resources, of which 17 belong to type:Theology, 73 are type:monograph, 1 is type:manual, 2 are type:lexicon, 5 are type:encyclopedia, and 1 is type:"Bible Commentary" (A "Theological Survey" of the book of Romans).

EDIT: I have tagged (Mytag) 8 resources as "Theology" of which one now has the new type and also has subject:theology. The other 7 have theology as a subject and may await your tagging as type:theology i.e.

Some are also tagged "Christology".

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MJ. Smith

I may be wrong here, but I thought that "subject" was part of the cataloging information provided by the publishers and often included on the copyright page. If I'm wrong, I missed many opportunities to complain.

conversely, those with Subject:Theology should also have type:"Systematic Theology".

Is this true - is all theology systematic theology? I've always thought of systematic theology as a subfield of theology.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770952#Comment_770952

I've always thought of systematic theology as a subfield of theology.

And Dogmatic Theology as a "subfield" of Systematic Theology? This is why I raised the Metadata issue in the wiki and now in this thread. The publishers' cataloging of "theology" is arbitrary and inconsistent, and now that Faithlife have made this change with type, I'd like them to consider the needs of its users.

Mark Barnes

Now we have the issue of consistency because all type:"Systematic Theology" should have "Theology" as a subject and conversely, those with Subject:Theology should also have type:"Systematic Theology".

You first part may be correct. Your second certainly isn't. By no means all theology books are systematic theology.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770978#Comment_770978

By no means all theology books are systematic theology.

(my emphasis) --> but that is part of the reason that I made that statement!

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/770994#Comment_770994

(my emphasis) --> but that is part of the reason that I made that statement!

Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but it sounded as though you were proposing that all bookings tagged with "theology" in the subject, should be set to the type "systematic theology". MJ seemed to get the same impression. If you're not suggesting that, could you clarify, please?

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/771251#Comment_771251

There is a problem with the application of "theology" as a metadata Subject, which I raised in the Metadata wiki over 10 months ago and Hayley responded about 6 months later! This concerned non-theological works which had been tagged by the publisher and Faithlife because there was a mention of "theology" somewhere. With Logos now introducing "Systematic Theology" as a metadata Type, we now have a problem with consistency of application (and definition), as potentially all works with Subject "theology" should have that type if Faithlife are not going to change existing Subjects!

I think that "theology" as a metadata type is inappropriate as a fix for the "monograph" type and that Faithlife should properly address the Subject issue for its users.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/771288#Comment_771288

I understand the point you made on the Wiki that some resources incorrectly have "theology" as a subject.

With Logos now introducing "Systematic Theology" as a metadata Type, we now have a problem with consistency of application (and definition), as potentially all works with Subject "theology" should have that type if Faithlife are not going to change existing Subjects!

The type of book is only indirectly related to its subject(s). For example a resource about the Gospels could be of type:monograph, type:bible-commentary, type:encyoplaedia, or type:journal, etc.

I think that "theology" as a metadata type is inappropriate as a fix for the "monograph" type and that Faithlife should properly address the Subject issue for its users.

It's not a fix. It's not intended to be a fix. I'm afraid I still don't understand how/why you're linking these two issues.

Lonnie Spencer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/771290#Comment_771290

How Morris Proctor explained the labeling system in Logos to me was....

My Tags: my own personal way of classifying my books

Type: Logos way of classifying my books

Subject: The Library of Congress way of classifying my books.

So there are three different classifications going on in my library simultaneously. The only classification I have any control over is my own tags. The only control Logos has any control over is the type. The publishers have no control over the way their books are classified because that is determined by the Library of Congress classification system. I agree with Dave and MJ that the classification system in Logos needs a lot more refinement than a simple "typology" classification, just as I have added subdivisions under general labels in my tags system. That is why I would rather make collections from "my tags" then from Logos "type" because some of Logos general classification for "type" act like a black hole where books go to get lost (i.e. "monographs") or defy logic as why this book is under this type. Even if collections made from my tags is not dynamic, and must be tagged manually, at least it is more consistent with the way I classify and look for my books.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/771301#Comment_771301

My Tags: my own personal way of classifying my books

Type: Logos way of classifying my books

Subject: The Library of Congress way of classifying my books.

That's true, so long as we understand that all these are different classifications.

The subject is what the resource is about. The type is the form of the resource. And a tag can be anything I want (from 'biblical-studies', to 'bought2015' to 'ugly-book-cover').

I do occasionally wish subjects were more consistently applied, but (a) they're a lot better than they used to be, (b) most of the time they're fine, and (c) I'm never going to be satisfied with someone else's classification system, which is why we have tags. It's rare that the subject field gives me problems when building collections on narrow topics.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/771310#Comment_771310

My understanding of the expansion of type as gleaned from various posts from Faithlife employees. Type is the users primary clue as to how a resource is structured and indexed ... and what portion of Guides and Tools it will appear in. Logos considered a reworking of types for a recent release but found the project too complex/time-consuming to be practical at this time. However they are doing some reassignment of type and additions to type as a way of exposing to the user more precise information on structure and usage i.e. a small step forward when a large step was impractical. I think this can be considered a response to requests to expose system implicit collections and the exposure of traits.

I dream of the day in which the software can present a "virtual" library view and search results view, in which all of these individual works which are inside of a single volume can be seen "as if" they were individual resources, with the work in which they are found simply another column of metadata.

....

This has been on my list for years. We had it scheduled for 6.6, but it turned out to be a much larger undertaking that we originally thought. We're back at the drawing board, but we do hope to be able to bring something like this eventually.

etc.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/771290#Comment_771290

I think that "theology" as a metadata type is inappropriate as a fix for the "monograph" type and that Faithlife should properly address the Subject issue for its users.

It's not a fix. It's not intended to be a fix. I'm afraid I still don't understand how/why you're linking these two issues.

And I'm not helping with conjectures! Rephrase as "I think that "theology" as a metadata type is inappropriate and that Faithlife should properly address the Subject issue for its users." i.e. should reflect what the resource "is about".