KYLE: Proposed new type for books

Page 1 of 1 (13 items)
This post has 12 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 36323
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Posted: Tue, Mar 23 2021 3:05 PM

Sorry, I forgot to give myself I link to your post for this.

I would like to see a new category of "Apologetics and Polemics" which I believe requires the dual name because of the differences of understanding of what constitutes apologetics.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 2931
Jan Krohn | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 23 2021 4:01 PM

Do you mean a new "type"? Although I like the general idea, I see some problems. "Apologetics nad Polemics" is a topical type, whereas all (or most) of the other existing types are library types. So there's a big overlap with other types.

For example, there are dictionaries on apologetics (there's one in your list), journals of apologetics (easily found in Logos), the Apologetics Study Bible, and even a systematic theology with focus on apologetics (by Norman Geisler). Such works would then belong into two types.

What I think we actually need is a new field "topical type" or similar, apart from the current "type". One of those would be "Apologetics and Polemics", another one "Counselling", another one "Ministry", another one "Leadership", another one "Archaeology" etc. And every resource would go into one library type (dictionary, systematic theology, journal etc.) and in one topical type (as defined above). A setup like that would enable us to select resources on a very granular level right out of the box.

Past IT Consultant. Past Mission Worker. Entrepreneur. Seminary Student (VIU).
Christian Debate Forum --- Auferstanden! Blog

Posts 19699
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 23 2021 5:28 PM

I agree with Jan. This seems like a "Subject" or a tag rather than a Library Type.

Jan Krohn:
What I think we actually need is a new field "topical type" or similar, apart from the current "type". One of those would be "Apologetics and Polemics", another one "Counselling", another one "Ministry", another one "Leadership", another one "Archaeology" etc. And every resource would go into one library type (dictionary, systematic theology, journal etc.) and in one topical type (as defined above). A setup like that would enable us to select resources on a very granular level right out of the box.

I believe Subject provides this, though the categories there are inconsistently applied. Perhaps there needs to be a new field like "topical type" or "category" or some such. But there is overlap among these categories too, and each individual might categorize things differently. There is overlap between "Ministry" and both "Counseling" and "Leadership". So, like Subject, it would be a field that could have multiple values. But it would take eons to get it set up such that all existing books in the Logos catalogue had sufficient data filled in to be useful.

Since tagging already gives us the kind of granularity you desire, but the bottleneck is getting your whole library tagged well...

...what I propose instead is a new feature, which I'll call Tagging Scripts. This would be an automated way of going through your library and tagging a whole list of books with a given tag. Users could create tagging scripts to share with each other. And Faithlife could create tagging scripts that users could download. For example, tag all your Apologetics and Polemics books easily by downloading one script called, say apol-polem.lts (LTS = Logos Tagging Script), and running it. You'd run these scripts from within the desktop app. There could be a Faithlife group for sharing LTS files. New Libraries would come with a whole set of scripts for tagging your library.

Tagging is a task that is very labor intensive, every single user has to do to get the most out of Logos, and most people don't do sufficiently. (I gave up long ago, as it was impossible to keep up with it.) So this feature would be a huge win for users, and would make Logos so much more useful.

Posts 36323
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 23 2021 6:00 PM

I see several of the current types as subject/topics as well ... but it's not worth my time to push.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 19699
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 23 2021 7:52 PM

MJ. Smith:

I see several of the current types as subject/topics as well ... but it's not worth my time to push.

Oh wow, I see that now. I had not realized how much they had expanded (one might say "overloaded") the Type field. It used to be used only for differentiating types of resources that had different features or indexing methods (e.g., Calendar Devotional, Biblical Commentary, Media Collection). But now it seems they are using it for categorizing Monographs (Church History). Unless they're creating features that work only on Church History books, I'm not sure the reasoning behind this.

Posts 36323
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 23 2021 8:50 PM

Rosie Perera:
Unless they're creating features that work only on Church History books, I'm not sure the reasoning behind this.

My suspicion is that the Factbook will utilize the more specific divisions. So far, the categories have been helpful although Kyle is leaving some inconsistencies rather than moving items out of the guide. Yes, I'm having to change some habits but ...

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 28007
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 23 2021 10:01 PM

Rosie Perera:
now it seems they are using it for categorizing Monographs (Church History). Unless they're creating features that work only on Church History books, I'm not sure the reasoning behind this.

See https://community.logos.com/forums/t/199435.aspx

Dave
===

Windows 11 & Android 8

Posts 28007
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 23 2021 10:29 PM

Jan Krohn:
I like the general idea, I see some problems. "Apologetics nad Polemics" is a topical type, whereas all (or most) of the other existing types are library types. So there's a big overlap with other types.

There is "Apologetics" and there is "Polemics", but not "Apologetics and Polemics" as a Type. Currently, Apologetics is covered by Type Study Bible (?), Encyclopedia, Handbook, and Monograph. Type Handbook is overloaded with topics and does not have a unifying Index, unlike Encyclopedia where 5 are about Apologetics. So a type "Apologetics" (Christian!) would unload Encyclopedia (mainly "Bible Dictionaries") and Handbook. It should not be burdened with Polemics.

Dave
===

Windows 11 & Android 8

Posts 36323
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 23 2021 10:45 PM

Dave Hooton:
There is "Apologetics" and there is "Polemics", but not "Apologetics and Polemics" as a Type.

In American Evangelical circles and perhaps other groups, it appears that polemics is a subfield of apologetics -- at least in the view of some very respectable dictionaries. That is why I suggested that they be treated as a unit.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 2931
Jan Krohn | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 24 2021 4:05 AM

Rosie Perera:
Since tagging already gives us the kind of granularity you desire, but the bottleneck is getting your whole library tagged well...

Agreed. However:

Rosie Perera:
Tagging is a task that is very labor intensive, every single user has to do to get the most out of Logos, and most people don't do sufficiently. (I gave up long ago, as it was impossible to keep up with it.) So this feature would be a huge win for users, and would make Logos so much more useful.

I'm in the same boat. For proper tagging, one needs to understand to a certain degree what each and every book in the library is about. I'm not doing it any longer either.

Master degrees in library science definitely don't exist for no reason...

MJ. Smith:
I see several of the current types as subject/topics as well ... but it's not worth my time to push.

Sorry, I really didn't mean to push - just to improve an idea that I already find terrific.

Rosie Perera:
But now it seems they are using it for categorizing Monographs (Church History).

That is actually a very good example where this overlap is already happening. Many works on church history are not configured as type church history because they're already part of a different category.

MJ. Smith:
My suspicion is that the Factbook will utilize the more specific divisions.

Again, generally a great way of moving forward. However..... there are many e-books categorized with the new types. Unless the AI behind the new factbook is super clever, the lack of tagging might cause weird outcomes.

Past IT Consultant. Past Mission Worker. Entrepreneur. Seminary Student (VIU).
Christian Debate Forum --- Auferstanden! Blog

Posts 6112
SineNomine | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 24 2021 12:47 PM

MJ. Smith:
I would like to see a new category of "Apologetics and Polemics" which I believe requires the dual name because of the differences of understanding of what constitutes apologetics.

I would also like to see an apologetics type, but I would leave it at "Type:Apologetics" and just include polemics in it, because the longer type would be cumbersome in the Library and I fear it would likely confuse people.

“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara

Posts 28007
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 26 2021 2:44 PM

Jan Krohn:

Rosie Perera:
Tagging is a task that is very labor intensive, every single user has to do to get the most out of Logos, and most people don't do sufficiently. (I gave up long ago, as it was impossible to keep up with it.) So this feature would be a huge win for users, and would make Logos so much more useful.

I'm in the same boat. For proper tagging, one needs to understand to a certain degree what each and every book in the library is about. I'm not doing it any longer either.

Master degrees in library science definitely don't exist for no reason...

Assigning 'proper' Types to monographs is the real issue but it has consequences for books that have not been assigned according to their topic e.g. Encyclopedia, Handbook. Tagging is a personal matter and does not mean that you have to tag resources outside your range of interest. More than half of my Library is not tagged (1400), but this amounts to less than 1000 if bible commentaries are excluded. Their subject/category is available from the Subject: field and Passage Guide, but I have tagged some (about 70) that have been particularly helpful for my study e.g. Rapture, Kingdom. With a little more reduction, there are about 700 I likely will not tag, including 400 Monographs.

Dave
===

Windows 11 & Android 8

Posts 2931
Jan Krohn | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Mar 26 2021 3:30 PM

Dave Hooton:
Assigning 'proper' Types to monographs is the real issue but it has consequences for books that have not been assigned according to their topic e.g. Encyclopedia, Handbook. Tagging is a personal matter and does not mean that you have to tag resources outside your range of interest.

Ideally, it would be both, a personal as well as a general matter.

Some people use a research library to research topics outside their area of expertise or personal interest.

In their respective areas of expertise I assume most people can create a much better tagging system than a professional librarian.

On the other hand, professional librarians manage to tag (physical) research libraries with thousands and thousands of books, so than any researcher who is looking for material on any topic can already narrow down the selection of resources they need to consider, based on the tagging.

If something like this would be useful in Logos, that depends massively on how someone uses Logos. For sermon preparation: probably not so much. For Bible study: unlikely. For academic research: definitely. For apologetics: absolutely.

I do see that FL is actively improving the tagging, for example, by adding more types. I appreciate this greatly, and will gladly throw in my ideas in hopes that the end result will provide the maximal benefit for the greatest number of users. The denominational tagging is another example where Logos is adding massive value to an already existing library. Of course it could be better, but I do see it improving with almost every release.

Past IT Consultant. Past Mission Worker. Entrepreneur. Seminary Student (VIU).
Christian Debate Forum --- Auferstanden! Blog

Page 1 of 1 (13 items) | RSS