Resource Linking

What is the standard for resource linking in our libraries?

I'm currently reading Christian History Magazine--Issue 28: The 100 Most Important Events in Church History. I'm in the middle of the section called Athanasius Defines the New Testament*.

The section references his "Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367." I have that letter in my library**. I wouldn't be surprised if I have more than one copy. Regardless, I had to find it and the section within, which was not terrible, but also not trivial.

Given the "value-add" nature of our resources, is it too much to expect that they link to each other when giving reference? I have been building a library because I want to know how it's all connected, but I'm still digging like I'm at the University Library.

*logosres:ch28;ref=biblio.at$3DAthanasius$2520Defines$2520the$2520New$2520Testament$2520(367)$7Cau$3DThiede,$2520Carsten$2520Peter

**logosres:wrksanthanasius03;ref=Athanasius.Ep._fest._39

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

JT (alabama24)

If the resource is new, and if the source material is 1) the same edition being referenced and 2) was in the Logos ecosystem PRIOR to the creation of the given resource, I would expect it to be linked. Else I wouldn't... At least not until the resources are updated.

Mark Barnes

Given the "value-add" nature of our resources, is it too much to expect that they link to each other when giving reference? I have been building a library because I want to know how it's all connected, but I'm still digging like I'm at the University Library.

The commitment from Logos is that when a resource is first built, it should include active links to all resource that exist at that time. We're told not to expect links to be added later, except in exceptional circumstances (i.e. very popular, very important resources that continue to sell well).

The Christian History Magazine issue 28 is a pretty old resource (at least ten years old, I would think), that will be missing many links. Although NPNF was probably around before it, the datatype for this particular link may not have been (many of these milestones were added to NPNF afterwards).

Everett Headley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/788484#Comment_788484

The commitment from Logos is that when a resource is first built, it should include active links to all resource that exist at that time. We're told not to expect links to be added later, except in exceptional circumstances (i.e. very popular, very important resources that continue to sell well).

Can you cite this source?

Logos is "value added" by adding this links. All links should be made to work. Links should be made retroactive. This is why we pay for Logos. Even new works miss many links. IF you search the forums, you can see where I have posted about this, many times, to no avail.

mike

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/788499#Comment_788499

I had just encountered this; where the journal is citing another journal, and the footnote link does not do anything at all. And I know that journal that's being quoted is also in Logos. (I had to open the quoted footnote manually because it wasn't hyperlink properly)

William Gabriel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/788499#Comment_788499

The commitment from Logos is that when a resource is first built, it should include active links to all resource that exist at that time. We're told not to expect links to be added later, except in exceptional circumstances (i.e. very popular, very important resources that continue to sell well).

Can you cite this source?

Logos is "value added" by adding this links. All links should be made to work. Links should be made retroactive. This is why we pay for Logos. Even new works miss many links. IF you search the forums, you can see where I have posted about this, many times, to no avail.

I don't want to be combative with Logos here, but this is the tension, isn't it? Any time we ask for a price break on a Logos resource because it's cheaper elsewhere, the reply is that there's value add that justifies keeping the high price.

But we users see shortcomings in the execution and implementation all the time, so are the prices really justified?

I see blog posts like this and feel excited: https://blog.logos.com/2012/12/sometimes-bigger-is-better/

But then when the rubber meets the road, I often feel like most of that benefit ends up lacking, like in my example today.

So what level of service should we expect? What amount should we expect with the premium we're being asked to pay?