Really?
It may be beneficial for some to have it appear in the Commentary section of the Passage Guide (which it does). It's indexed like a bible commentary or bible notes.
How do you think it would be better categorized? It wouldn't work to categorize it as a Clause Visualization resource because the diagrams are just images that are not searchable using Syntax search like the other Clause Visualization resources (like Cascadia or OpenText).
Create a new type and call it Sentence Diagram. Then any from the Old or New Testament woould work.
And for some of us it would be a disaster - there is already too many commentaries "only because of indexing non-commentaries" cluttering my largest section. Commentaries is becoming like Monograph - a category that needs sorted out into functional categories with perhaps multiple default copies in a Passage Guide. It is the inclusion of the "All the nnnn in the Bible" lists that was my last straw in commentary nonsense.
Why not just make it a type:clause visualization? It would open with the other diagrams in that section of the PG or EG.
Create a new type and call it Sentence Diagram. Then any from the Old or New Testament woould work. Why not just make it a type:clause visualization? It would open with the other diagrams in that section of the PG or EG.
This is not a reosurce like Opentext or Andersen Forbes. These are images of certain passages and not the entire book. As such clause visualization would not work so I suggested a new type that would work and if you want it in the passage guide Faithlife should make that type available to add to the passage guide.
Creating a new type would probably be the best option. I suppose one could make a case that it's a Bible as well.I also updated the resource so it appears in the Visualization section of the Exegetical Guide.
I also updated the resource so it appears in the Visualization section of the Exegetical Guide.
Thank you. This is where I think it belongs.
Creating a new type would probably be the best option. I suppose one could make a case that it's a Bible as well.
Oh, no! Let's be sensible about this 'type' choice. One cannot search for text in this resource.
