METADATA errors that mess up collections:

These are monographs but should be commentaries:

Hilary of Poitiers. Commentary on Matthew. Edited by David G. Hunter. Translated by D. H. Williams. Vol. 125. The Fathers of the Church. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2012.

John Chrysostom. The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Gospel of St. Matthew. A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church. Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; F. and J. Rivington, 1851. (other editions treated as commentary)

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dave Hooton

I added the following to Metadata correction proposals under Subjects.

Eerdmans Companion to the Bible should have “Bible—Commentaries” instead of “Bible—Introductions”
Thru the Bible Series. Remove “Bible—Commentaries” from each of the 60 volumes.

They all have type "bible commentary".

Kyle G. Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/821927#Comment_821927

Sorry for the delay. We had some discussions on these.

These are monographs but should be commentaries:

Hilary of Poitiers. Commentary on Matthew. Edited by David G. Hunter. Translated by D. H. Williams. Vol. 125. The Fathers of the Church. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2012.

John Chrysostom. The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Gospel of St. Matthew. A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church. Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; F. and J. Rivington, 1851. (other editions treated as commentary)

For Hilary we restrict that status to resources with Bible milestones which this resource lacked.

We changed Chrysostom to commentary.

I added the following to Metadata correction proposals under Subjects.

Eerdmans Companion to the Bible should have “Bible—Commentaries” instead of “Bible—Introductions”

Thru the Bible Series. Remove “Bible—Commentaries” from each of the 60 volumes.

They all have type "bible commentary".

Eerdmans Companion: The subject came from LoC. We added Bible--Commentaries as well.

Thru the Bible: Subject of Bible--Commentaries also came from LoC. However we went back and added inclusive/more narrow subjects for each of the 60 volumes.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/822442#Comment_822442

For Hilary we restrict that status to resources with Bible milestones which this resource lacked.

Sorry - I forgot to check that

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/822442#Comment_822442

Thru the Bible: Subject of Bible--Commentaries also came from LoC. However we went back and added inclusive/more narrow subjects for each of the 60 volumes.

The Series volumes already had narrow subjects (e.g. Bible.O.T.Genesis--Commentaries) which are needed for collections specific to a bible book, but "Bible--Commentaries" states that the volume contains all books; so it should be removed (it's a legacy of the single volume commentary).

LoC ?

Eerdmans Companion: The subject came from LoC. We added Bible--Commentaries as well.

Thanks for that.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/822498#Comment_822498

LoC ?

Library of Congress - the catalogue standard for the US - sometimes published on copyright page.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/822498#Comment_822498

Thru the Bible: Subject of Bible--Commentaries also came from LoC. However we went back and added inclusive/more narrow subjects for each of the 60 volumes.

The Series volumes already had narrow subjects (e.g. Bible.O.T.Genesis--Commentaries) which are needed for collections specific to a bible book, but "Bible--Commentaries" states that the volume contains all books; so it should be removed (it's a legacy of the single volume commentary).

Still not fixed. This is the only series that breaks the convention and wrecks Collection rules for single-volume commentaries

Kyle G. Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/823587#Comment_823587

Thru the Bible: Subject of Bible--Commentaries also came from LoC. However we went back and added inclusive/more narrow subjects for each of the 60 volumes.

The Series volumes already had narrow subjects (e.g. Bible.O.T.Genesis--Commentaries) which are needed for collections specific to a bible book, but "Bible--Commentaries" states that the volume contains all books; so it should be removed (it's a legacy of the single volume commentary).

Still not fixed. This is the only series that breaks the convention and wrecks Collection rules for single-volume commentaries

When a book provides an LoC subject we provide it. This is also true for many commentaries that cover less than all books of the Bible.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/824639#Comment_824639

When a book provides an LoC subject we provide it.

It seems that you are not concerned about its utility to users of Logos; which is very disappointing

This is also true for many commentaries that cover less than all books of the Bible.

From library queries that exclude the series "Thru the Bible Commentary":-

subject:bible-commentaries subject:N.T. -series:thru ==> "Lexham Textual Notes"; which means the N.T. subject is incorrect as it covers all books.

subject:bible-commentaries subject:O.T. -series:thru ==> no results

If true these queries would include volumes that cover a single book of the bible or specific books. Also would include those that cover NT books only or OT books only. Most, but not all, have the subject "-commentaries" appended to the book name e.g. "N.T.-commentaries", "N.T.Matthew-commentaries".

So the use of "bible-commentaries" is inconsistent/incorrect for this "Thru the Bible" series and likely arises because of the legacy single volume work.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/824719#Comment_824719

Bump to Kyle.

Kyle G. Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/827004#Comment_827004

Dave--could you help explain how having a broad subject of Bible--Commentaries in addition to a narrow subject of N.T. Matthew--Commentaries wrecks collections.

We have about six or seven other collections with a similar subject structuring. Understanding what this is blocking or preventing can help us refine our standards.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/827893#Comment_827893

Dave--could you help explain how having a broad subject of Bible--Commentaries in addition to a narrow subject of N.T. Matthew--Commentaries wrecks collections.

Because the rule subject:bible-commentaries will include volumes with specific bible books when it is expecting volumes that cover the whole bible; whose subject does not include the narrow N.T.xxx-Commentaries nor O.T.xxxx-Commentaries.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/829206#Comment_829206

Dave, I understand you complaint and desired use but I am used to card catalogues that are built the way Logos currently has it and would find the proposed change annoying.