Resource Metadata Correction proposals

In the hope of getting consistent metadata, I submit the following -

The Nag Hammadi Library in English is the only English Language Ancient Manuscript. All other English translations are Monographs.

The Ugaritic texts are not listed as Ancient Manuscripts

Foundation Documents of the Gospel Coalition is not a Journal

What determines the difference between Bible Notes and Bible Commentaries? Related is what is a Study Bible, type wise. Some are typed as each.

All the volumes of Evangelical Review of Theology should be the same type - in my opinion, they are Journals

I would lean toward Journal for Semeia as well.

Biographical Entries from Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature, A Dictionary of Women in Church History, and Handbook of Evangelical Theologians are all Dictionaries

Oxford Bible Commentary is a Commentary

Luther's Works Volume 10 is a Commentary

In general, the Monographs should be examined to see if they can be broken up into some more meaningful type descriptions.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DominicM

we will be corrected, but the person "fixin" this at logos is off with flu, we wish them a speedy recovery

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

In the hope of getting consistent metadata, I submit the following -

Thanks for this excellent summary! I've bookmarked it so that I can correct the problems once our metadata editing program is running properly. I also plan to fix the Opening Up series, disambiguate the KJVs, and the lang:English Bibles that aren't.

Any other resource metadata fix suggestions are welcome.

Jon

Text of Earliest NT manuscripts should be ancient manuscripts, needs series tag

Targumic Fragments should be ancient manuscripts, needs series tag

Anti-nicene fathers/post-nice fathers: ancient manuscripts

Apostolic fathers: only lightfoot listed as ancient manuscript

All the glossaries - really dictionaries?

Church dogmatics - needs series tag

Studies in dogmatics - needs series tag

The bible and its story - needs series tag

Ancient Egyptian literature - needs series tag

There are 2 copies of Pilgrim's Progress for anyone with Platinum/Portfolio or who bought Bunyan collection ?difference

A History of the Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ - needs series tag

In general, the Monographs should be examined to see if they can be broken up into some more meaningful type descriptions.

I think this is spot on as 'monograph' is essentially meaningless. I guess this is debatable but could categories like History, Theology, Christian living be 'types'?

Jon

Good things come in small groups: language English

Introducing the Old Testament, Introducing the New Testament: language English

All the lexicons except Liddel IGEL have language English, but not Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic

Paul M

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/27977#Comment_27977

I think that the New Testament Studies Collection ought to have the series tag set as well.

Paul M

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/27981#Comment_27981

Also the first Christian Primer: Matthew in the Bible Lessons International Collection doesn't have the series tag set. Neither do the other three non commentary titles in the same series You Can Understand the Bible Survey, Old Testament Survey and New Testament Survey.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/27904#Comment_27904

Any other resource metadata fix suggestions are welcome.

This is one I posted a while back:


Resource	Current Metadata	Proposed Metadata
KJV study bible	type:Bible Notes	type: bible commentary
Macarthur study bible	type:Bible Notes	type: bible commentary
New Manners and customs of the Bible	type: bible commentary	type:Monograph
Tanakh, the holy Scriptures	lang:English;Hebrew	lang:English
Life of christ: A study guide to the gospel	type: bible commentary	type:Monograph
Word Pictures in the NT	type: bible commentary	type:Monograph
Word Studies in the NT	type: bible commentary	type:Monograph
BHS morphologically Tagged Edition	lang:English;Hebrew	lang:Hebrew
Septuaginta morphologically Tagged Edition	lang:English;Greek	lang:Greek

TDNTA is tagged with lang German + Novum Testamentum Graece is tagged as Latin!

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/27972#Comment_27972

Text of Earliest NT manuscripts should be ancient manuscripts, needs series tag

Targumic Fragments should be ancient manuscripts, needs series tag

Anti-nicene fathers/post-nice fathers: ancient manuscripts

Apostolic fathers: only lightfoot listed as ancient manuscript

What is an ancient manuscript? From what has been categorized so far, I have taken this to mean "non biblical original language text". By the way, for me the Holmes is listed as an ancient manuscript, but the Lake Greek is not.

I, for one want the Texts of the Earliest NT manuscripts to be listed as Greek Bibles, since that is what they are, no matter how fragmentary. By extension, the Targums should be listed as Aramaic Bibles. If they are taged as Bibles, then the bible comparison tool can be used with them, which can be useful.

Jon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/28172#Comment_28172

What is an ancient manuscript?

You're right this is a fair question, I guess that explains why they're tagged as bibles then...

There's also problems all over the place with Publisher and Publish dates, there needs to be some consistency. So for example, if I sort my library by publisher, many of the publishers have slightly different permutations on their names. Of particular concern is that there are Logos, Logos Bible Software and 9 different permutations of Logos Research Systems Inc. Within these there are 100s of resources including many older resources where I would rather know who the original publisher was. The publication dates are also inconsistent, some have Logos as the publisher but the original publication date, others have Logos as the publisher and the date it was published by Logos.

As an example, if I open up a Pulpit Bible Commentary, the citation is for Logos... 2004; what I really want if I'm bothering to look there (or if I'm copying and pasting and need the citation) is the information available on the product page here http://www.logos.com/products/details/2077

TCBlack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/28275#Comment_28275

Christian History Magazine is incorrectly tagged as a monograph, it should be type:Magazine.

Fr. Nicklaus Winker

The Imitation of Christ is writen The imitation of Christ

Whyndell Grizzard

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/33777#Comment_33777

Can we please tag study bible with "study bibles or bibles-study" instead of commentaries!!!!

please, please, please, and any other non-commentary book.

Damian McGrath

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/34303#Comment_34303

Can we please tag study bible with "study bibles or bibles-study" instead of commentaries!!!!

please, please, please, and any other non-commentary book.

I seven-hundred and twenty-fourth that

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/28275#Comment_28275

There's also problems all over the place with Publisher and Publish dates, there needs to be some consistency. So for example, if I sort my library by publisher, many of the publishers have slightly different permutations on their names. Of particular concern is that there are Logos, Logos Bible Software and 9 different permutations of Logos Research Systems Inc. Within these there are 100s of resources including many older resources where I would rather know who the original publisher was. The publication dates are also inconsistent, some have Logos as the publisher but the original publication date, others have Logos as the publisher and the date it was published by Logos.

This was also a gripe I had about "Library" listings under Version 3. It can be expected with PBB authors not having uniformity, but several of my third party "official" Libronix resources did not match up with Logos conventions for "Library" listings.

Sometimes it would be nice to re-define not just types & collections but the title itself.

[Oh, as Damian says in his post just above this, I seven-hundred and twenty-fifth the motion.]

Chris Elford

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/34331#Comment_34331

There's also problems all over the place with Publisher and Publish dates, there needs to be some consistency. So for example, if I sort my library by publisher, many of the publishers have slightly different permutations on their names. Of particular concern is that there are Logos, Logos Bible Software and 9 different permutations of Logos Research Systems Inc. Within these there are 100s of resources including many older resources where I would rather know who the original publisher was. The publication dates are also inconsistent, some have Logos as the publisher but the original publication date, others have Logos as the publisher and the date it was published by Logos.

This was also a gripe I had about "Library" listings under Version 3. It can be expected with PBB authors not having uniformity, but several of my third party "official" Libronix resources did not match up with Logos conventions for "Library" listings.

Sometimes it would be nice to re-define not just types & collections but the title itself.

[Oh, as Damian says in his post just above this, I seven-hundred and twenty-fifth the motion.]

Matthew,

You can edit the title of a resource. There's a little pencil beside the title when you click on the resource info button on the top bar on your library pane. You can also edit the "short title" there. What you can't touch is the "Type" and "Authors."

Chris

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/34521#Comment_34521

You can edit the title of a resource. There's a little pencil beside the title when you click on the resource info button on the top bar on your library pane. You can also edit the "short title" there. What you can't touch is the "Type" and "Authors."

I can edit titles in Version 3?

Well, editing titles in version 4 will be nice.. Still, the authors and types are what I'd really make changes to.

Jeremy

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/34609#Comment_34609

The Encyclopedia of Christianity is better suited as a dictionary Type.

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/27904#Comment_27904

We've made a couple of changes to test the system: the Opening Up commentary series should now be associated (although I notice that two titles now contain a question mark... that looks like a bug), and "lang:English type:Bible" shouldn't return incorrect results. The parallel passages and lectionaries that were missing inserted text should also be fixed now.

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/34646#Comment_34646

We've made a couple of changes to test the system: the Opening Up commentary series should now be associated (although I notice that two titles now contain a question mark... that looks like a bug), and "lang:English type:Bible" shouldn't return incorrect results. The parallel passages and lectionaries that were missing inserted text should also be fixed now.

Worked for me!

Stuart Robertson

Barker, Steve. Good Things Come in Small Groups : The Dynamics of Good Group Life - has language set as Afrikaans but is actually English.

Stuart Robertson

Add to that Kittel, Gerhard, Gerhard Friedrich, and Geoffrey William Bromiley. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament - which has language set to German instead of English.

Paul M

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/34646#Comment_34646

We've made a couple of changes to test the system: the Opening Up commentary series should now be associated (although I notice that two titles now contain a question mark... that looks like a bug), and "lang:English type:Bible" shouldn't return incorrect results. The parallel passages and lectionaries that were missing inserted text should also be fixed now.

Works fine for me, however the type for Opening up is set to Monograph rather Commentary

Damian McGrath

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/34646#Comment_34646

We've made a couple of changes to test the system: the Opening Up commentary series should now be associated (although I notice that two titles now contain a question mark... that looks like a bug), and "lang:English type:Bible" shouldn't return incorrect results. The parallel passages and lectionaries that were missing inserted text should also be fixed now.

What exactly do I have to do to receive this fix?

Can I say, this worries me greatly. One moment I have a fully functioning lectionary, the next minute I do not. What exactly happened to remove text from my lectionary? I really feel like Logos has a responsibility to explain when things like this happen, not simply to wait until a user notices it and then declare that it will be fixed in an upcoming metadata release...

Whyndell Grizzard

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/34833#Comment_34833

Bradley

Why do the volumes on Luke and Ezekiel have question marks in their titles?

Paul M

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/34841#Comment_34841

Why do the volumes on Luke and Ezekiel have question marks in their titles?

Whilst we're at it the Opening Up Commentaries also don't have any author information when shown in the library or a description of the content as other resources do. They also don't have any subject metadata. Just for the sake of completeness!

Nick Watson

Oxford Bible Commentary is currently listed as monograph, should be commentary.

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/34833#Comment_34833

What exactly do I have to do to receive this fix?

I think all that needs to be done is start up Logos with the Use Internet setting already set to On. Sync Now and Update Now don't seem to have anything to do with metadata downloads.

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/34816#Comment_34816

Works fine for me, however the type for Opening up is set to Monograph rather Commentary

This should be fixed now.

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/34859#Comment_34859

Why do the volumes on Luke and Ezekiel have question marks in their titles?

Whilst we're at it the Opening Up Commentaries also don't have any author information when shown in the library or a description of the content as other resources do. They also don't have any subject metadata. Just for the sake of completeness!

This information was removed due to an error on our part; it has now been restored. (And the question marks have been removed from the titles.)

Steve Robinson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/35215#Comment_35215

Don't know the cause or extent of the issue, but in the Gingrich Outline Commentaries, "The Book of Genesis" does NOT show up in the list of commentaries in a passage search within Genesis, but his individual commentaries do for at least searches in the books of Joshua, Mark and John. (Didn't go through the other 62 books of the Bible.)

Paul M

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/35213#Comment_35213

This should be fixed now.

Thanks Bradley I will confirm this later.

Paul M

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/35213#Comment_35213

This should be fixed now.

Thanks Bradley I can confirm that this is fixed.

Mark Barnes

The BAR (Biblical Archaeology Review) is missing covers, except for volume 27:6. The covers are there in the body of the resource, but missing from the metadata.

Kevin Becker

The Nag Hammadi Library in English is the only English Language Ancient Manuscript. All other English translations are Monographs.

The Ugaritic texts are not listed as Ancient Manuscripts

The Context of Scripture (3 Vols) should probably be tagged consistently with the Nag Hammadi Library; I like English Language Ancient Manuscript. It most certainly isn't a monograph.

Jon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/37076#Comment_37076

Beginning Biblical Hebrew and Elements of New Testament Greek could be type:grammar

DominicM

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/37888#Comment_37888

Beginning Biblical Hebrew and Elements of New Testament Greek could be type:grammar

or "Self Learning"

LimJK

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/38128#Comment_38128

Hi Please complete the Series for Bible & Spade

Volume 2006-2009 does not have anything in the Series field.
Volume 1972-2005 Series Field is defined.

Thanks

Jason Van Vliet

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/34689#Comment_34689

I also notice that Liddel & Scott (LSJ) does not seem to be set for the datatype Greek. If I prioritize BDAG and LSJ, BDAG shows up in my Exegetical Guides / Word Studies, but LSJ does not. If I right click on BDAG for the advanced setting in Prioritize Resources, then under "Type" I find Greek. If I do the same thing for LSJ I find "[blank']" Is something missing in LSJ's metadata?

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/39305#Comment_39305

The NA27 Apparatus Criticus has lang:German but not lang:English. It should be both.

Good Things come in small Groups has lang:afrikaans

Introducing the New Testament, Introducing the Old Tesament and the LSJ all have lang:British.

John Owen's 17th volume does not have lang:latin

A Concise Coptic/English lexicon does not have lang:coptic

Milkman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/29789#Comment_29789

Hey Thomas, you seem to be the "go to guy." Is there any talk about having a 'line' draw or 'free-hand' draw in Highlighting? What about having sticking notes available as well? See Imarkup.com for more info.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/39305#Comment_39305

Is something missing in LSJ's metadata?

Yes. LSJ is not indexed for Greek headwords.

HAL is not indexed for Aramaic (this might be a legacy of L3).

NAS Updated Exhaustive Concordance is not indexed for English!

English Works of Philo is not properly indexed for Works of Philo data type (it says it is but you can't enter that data in its text box).

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/40319#Comment_40319

I think that Luther's Works ought to have the series tag set as well. So that one can prioritise the series.

Ted

TCBlack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/40128#Comment_40128

Hey Thomas, you seem to be the "go to guy." Is there any talk about having a 'line' draw or 'free-hand' draw in Highlighting? What about having sticking notes available as well? See Imarkup.com for more info.

Hardly a go to guy. I just spend too much time in the forums. I've not heard any talk of that nature.

P.S. Try to start a new thread for different topics. [;)]

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/40382#Comment_40382

Hardly a go to guy. I just spend too much time in the forums. I've not heard any talk of that nature.

the comma in your post count says it all. :-) You have helped many people on this forum. You are the go-to-guy :-) would you like me to start just telling people to email you directly? Or would you prefer phone calls?

TCBlack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/40390#Comment_40390

the comma in your post count says it all. :-) You have helped many people on this forum. You are the go-to-guy :-) would you like me to start just telling people to email you directly? Or would you prefer phone calls?

PHILIP! [:@] I had a mouth full of coffee when I read that - LOL. I nearly splorked all over my desk. [:O]

I was thinking now that I got my thousand you should finish earning yours. [y]

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/40401#Comment_40401

I was thinking now that I got my thousand you should finish earning yours.

Earn is a funny word. If you take out all the posts that had no redeemable nature to them, I'm probably in the 200-300 range :-)

EDIT: I was referring to posts like this one.

Todd Anson Wilkins

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/34689#Comment_34689

Possibly not the best place to ask this particular question... What is the definition of a monograph? I have looked in the help file L3 and L4 as well as in the formums for a suitable definition. The lion share of my resources fall under this type and appears to be "we didn't know where to put this resource" data type.

Thanks

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/41689#Comment_41689

"A detailed and documented treatise on a particular subject"

translation: generally not a series, generally a narrow topic, generally somewhat 'academic'

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/27904#Comment_27904

The Sheffield/T&T Clark Bible Study series needs a Series marker.

Ditto Ancient Egyptian Literature v.1-3

Not sure if this is the place, but the Anchor Dictionary only has working links for Bible verses. References to items in my library don't link. That is surprising, and not in a good way.

Question: I have elsewhere asked for the ability to "physically" sort my library into folders and subfolders. I find the fact I have to face a list of 2,500 line items in my library daunting. Being able to reduce that with folders by half or more would do wonders for me (kind of like the Favorites menu in Explorer). I realize that the Collections have some sort of similar purpose (I haven't actually created any yet), but aren't they more for searching as opposed to organization (ie. folders)?

Ryan Schatz

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/42954#Comment_42954

Question: I have elsewhere asked for the ability to "physically" sort my library into folders and subfolders. I find the fact I have to face a list of 2,500 line items in my library daunting. Being able to reduce that with folders by half or more would do wonders for me (kind of like the Favorites menu in Explorer). I realize that the Collections have some sort of similar purpose (I haven't actually created any yet), but aren't they more for searching as opposed to organization (ie. folders)?

Folders are the way things used to be done. Tagging is much better, but takes a bit of time to get used to, and requires a bit of a paradigm shift. If you use gmail, you should be already introduced to tagging and how well it works.

Using folders has the distinct disadvantage that if something really belongs to two categories, you can only store it in one folder. On the other hand, you can give it as many tags as you like. You can also use the built-in tags (though, as others have pointed out, they still need some fixing). For example, if you want to see all your Bibles, you can filter your library by typing type:bible. If you only want the English ones, you can use type:bible lang:english. If this list is not right and you want to fix it, then add your own tags to each resource. Then you can filter like so: mytags:englishBibles (for example).

Hope that helps.