Missing links in St. Thomas's Summa Theologica?
I just got Verbum a few days ago and am very much enjoying my exploration of it. One of the reasons I bought this product was the idea that all of the various resources that I buy will be linked together, but for some reason some of the resources mentioned in St. Thomas's Summa Theologica are missing links.
For example: in IIIa, q.47, a.3, St. Thomas cites Aristotle's Ethics in the sed contra, as well as in the reply to objection 3, and he cites the Physics in objection 1. He refers to other articles within the Summa, and to passages of Sacred Scripture, and these are hyperlinked, but the references to Aristotle are not linked to, even though Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics is included in the package that I purchased.
Am I using the tool incorrectly, or is the tagging just not complete yet for the Summa? I would be grateful for any advice.
Best regards,
James
Comments
-
If I remember correctly, the Summa was processed by Faithlife long before Aristotle's works were added. Often when new works are added to FL's selection, older books that refer to them are not updated with links. This is unfortunate, but this is how it is.
Sometimes pointing out such missing links on the forums adds (or moves up) fixing the problem on FL's to-do list.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
Welcome to Logos/Verbum, a really great system--except for this. You never know how well or poorly linked a resource is going to be until you buy it and try it.
If I remember correctly, the Summa was processed by Faithlife long before Aristotle's works were added. Often when new works are added to FL's selection, older books that refer to them are not updated with links. This is unfortunate, but this is how it is.
Sometimes pointing out such missing links on the forums adds (or moves up) fixing the problem on FL's to-do list.
AFAIK none of the older theological resources I use have ever been updated with improved links. The Summa certainly is important enough that it should be but don't hold your breath. This is by far the greatest disappointment I've had in investing in Logos.
0 -
AFAIK none of the older theological resources I use have ever been updated with improved links. The Summa certainly is important enough that it should be but don't hold your breath. This is by far the greatest disappointment I've had in investing in Logos.
I have had that disappointment too, but I think it stems not from Faithlife not updating old resources, it stems from the fact that there must be 25,000 resources or more that they have published now! I have been a customer probably since the late 90s, and the updating of old resources process has gotten larger, more comprehensive, and reported better over the years.
Now, Faithlife seems to be reporting every month on the resources it has updated (and I keep reminding myself it's all free for those who have the resources already) - in most cases this is just updates to tagging (works better with new features that rely on tagging) and on linking. Here are some recent posts on their blog, you can see how many resources are being updated monthly:
February: https://blog.logos.com/2015/03/resource-updates-february-2015/
March: https://blog.logos.com/2015/04/resource-updates-march-2015/
April: https://blog.logos.com/2015/05/resource-updates-april-2015/
May: https://blog.logos.com/2015/06/resource-updates-may-2015/
June/July: https://blog.logos.com/2015/08/resource-updates-june-july-2015/
August: https://blog.logos.com/2015/09/resource-updates-august-2015/
So I think SineNomine is right, the best approach is a post in the forums (or even an email) that that product manager might see and comment on - give it a good title. For the Summa, the Verbum lead guys are Deacon Kevin Bagley and Louis St. Hilaire - Louis is on the forums a lot, he may see this and comment. If you don't see a response here from Louis, email him (and let us know what he says <g.)
0 -
Hi James: Welcome to forums. Andrew Curtis alerted me to your post.
Don has given a pretty good summary of the situation with updating resources. Basically, we have to periodically update older books to add new features (including new data types, which allow us to link to things like Aristotle). There's always a lot of this work to do, and different users have different priorities, but in the last few years, we've dedicated more resources to updates, and we've developed systems that make the work more efficient and systematic.
The Summa is definitely due for an update, especially since we added Aristotle a year or two ago. I talked to the Content Production department and confirmed that it's on their list to update.
(Sean: I think you'll be happy to hear that an update to the work pictured in your avatar is already in progress.)
0 -
Dear Louis,
Thank you for your quick reply to my question, and especially for following up with the production department on my behalf. That is great news that the Summa is on the list for an update, and I will be very grateful to have it when it comes. Is there any public website that shows such information so as not having to bother you with these questions? If there were, perhaps we in the public could help you by adding comments to various items that are or should be scheduled for updates. These comments could include observations of missing links, which might help your staff.
Best regards,
James
0 -
Dear Louis,
Thank you for your quick reply to my question, and especially for following up with the production department on my behalf. That is great news that the Summa is on the list for an update, and I will be very grateful to have it when it comes. Is there any public website that shows such information so as not having to bother you with these questions? If there were, perhaps we in the public could help you by adding comments to various items that are or should be scheduled for updates. These comments could include observations of missing links, which might help your staff.
Best regards,
James
This raises the question for me, what is the best method to communicate things like this to Faithlife? Starting a new thread for every missing link seems a bit overkill. I know that Verbum/Logos as the "report typo" feature. If we selected something that should have a link and reported it as a typo with the description "missing link", would that reach the right place? Or would that just annoy the staff members that work on correcting actual typos? [;)]
0 -
Is there any public website that shows such information so as not having to bother you with these questions? If there were, perhaps we in the public could help you by adding comments to various items that are or should be scheduled for updates. These comments could include observations of missing links, which might help your staff.
I think it would probably be more work for us to maintain this and keep the information up to date and accurate than it is to answer occasional questions about specific resources. And feedback from users helps inform us about which updates are most important to prioritize. If one person is reporting a problem, there are probably others who are annoyed by it but haven't spoken up.
For minor problems you find with a resource that aren't so urgent, but should be addressed in the next update, the "Report Typo" feature can be used. These are logged and reviewed when we update a resource. (Also, the number of typo reports we receive on a resource helps us determine how to prioritize our updates.)
This raises the question for me, what is the best method to communicate things like this to Faithlife? Starting a new thread for every missing link seems a bit overkill. I know that Verbum/Logos as the "report typo" feature. If we selected something that should have a link and reported it as a typo with the description "missing link", would that reach the right place? Or would that just annoy the staff members that work on correcting actual typos?
If you come across a single missing or incorrect link, where it looks like the tagging team just missed one or got one wrong, "Report Typo" is a good approach. When there's a systemic problem (e.g. the book has hundreds of Aristotle references and none of them are linked), reporting every single one is probably a waste of time. You can use the note field in the Report Typo function to report that the problem is broader than the single instance you're reporting, or, if you think it warrants it, you can report it in the forums to make sure we're aware.
0 -
Dear Louis,
Thanks for all of the good stuff FaithLife has been adding to Verbum. I'm wondering if there is any news on when the Summa will be updated? I noticed recently that links to Dionysius are also not linked, despite my having his works in my library. I think Dionysius is one of the most quoted sources for St. Thomas in this Summa, so it would be very useful to have both him and Aristotle linked.
Best regards,
James
0 -
It doesn't look like were going to see a complete overhaul of the Summa soon, but I'm hoping I'm can do a limited update to get the major missing references (Aristotle, Dionysius, Gregory's Moralia) and some basic things like heading fields sometime this year (maybe this summer?).
Sorry for the delay, the recent layoffs have meant that everyone is taking on more work.
0 -
It doesn't look like were going to see a complete overhaul of the Summa soon, but I'm hoping I'm can do a limited update to get the major missing references (Aristotle, Dionysius, Gregory's Moralia) and some basic things like heading fields sometime this year (maybe this summer?).
Sorry for the delay, the recent layoffs have meant that everyone is taking on more work.
Thanks for the update!
0
