Expand what notes can be attached to
This suggestion issues out of the conversation that took place on this thread:
https://community.logos.com/forums/t/122946.aspx
To my knowledge, although it is technically possible to attach a note to pretty much anything that appears in the right in the context menu of a resource, most of these do not establish a meaningful relationship between the note and corresponding entity.
For instance, what is the benefit of attaching a note to a lemma or a root if one can see the note when looking at the corresponding lexical entry? What use is there to attaching a note to God as a Person datatype in a passage of Scripture, if that note will not be visible in connection with other occurrences of God as a person?
Finally, the OP in the other thread was trying to attach a note to surface text, treating as it were, as a headword. This is a legitimate request.
If I am mistaken (or ignorant) of how making a note on a lemma, person, sense, etc can benefit, I would appreciate some pointers from those in the know. If these are just current limitations, I would suggest expanding the possibilities accordingly.
Comments
-
I believe that you are requesting primarily a change in the visibility of notes rather than an expansion as to what they can be attached to. Is that correct? I believe a previous request asked for visibility primarily in Factbook and lexicons. Would that be satisfactory?
What would be the advantage of a note behaving as a headword vs. a personal dictionary book that uses current parsing capability? Yes, I am aware of the rationale of the OP but am unsure that sufficient thought was given to the problem of "headwords" in unparsed text. I have no objection to the proposal - I simply wonder if it would actually fill the need.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Thank you, MJ, for your reply and questions. With regard to the personal dictionary solution, it is not great because it is not convenient to update PBs on the fly and one has to leave the study environment in Logos to do it. So, if one is doing a focused study and will be adding information all the time, as well as use the information already gathered, doing a PB on the side is not great.
Visibility in guides wherever there is a logical connection would be good (e.g., sense/topic in Factbook, Topic Guide; lemma in Exegetical Guide, matching lexical entries etc).
Additionally, many applications have room for a user dictionary that is generated by the app itself as the user contributes to it. Would not a so much more sophisticated piece of software as Logos 6 be able to do something of the kind? Perhaps I am not seeing possible complications, hence this conversation. Perhaps indeed, what we need is a kind of user document: user dictionary. Then, much as I can choose in which note file I place a new note, I could have different dictionaries in which I place different type of information. You may ask what the difference is with a glossary type of note file? The difference is that (1) I could attach the dictionary entry to a word (like the OP wanted in the other thread) and be able to invoke it wherever the word occurs and (2) I could limit the behaviour of the dictionary with advanced prioritization as you had suggested.
0 -
Francis said:
Additionally, many applications have room for a user dictionary that is generated by the app itself as the user contributes to it.
This approach might be more successful although I've seen it primarily for spelling not definitions.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0
