Dear Logos: Please stop putting "Logos Bible Software" as the publisher of existing public-domain works

Page 2 of 3 (43 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next >
This post has 42 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 8899
fgh | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 7:42 AM

I'm all with Mark on this. Logos' own info should be in the 'epub' column, not the 'pub' columns. That's why we have an epub column.

Besides the reasons already mentioned, I'd say it's also a moral issue. Logos isn't working directly from the author's manuscript, they're taking advantage of another publisher's work. The fact that they no longer have to pay that publisher doesn't free them from the moral obligation to recognize their debt to his work.

tom:
I disagree, if Logos does the work to create the electronic edition, then Logos should get the credit as the publisher of the electronic version of the work of art we are using.

The publisher of the electronic version, yes -- if we really need a column for something that obvious -- but not the publisher. That would be like an old fashioned printing press replacing the publisher's name with their own, just because they painstakingly typeset the book, letter by letter.

Ken McGuire:
Also many theological works have one publisher in one country and another in another country.  So if Eerdmans (just for example) publishes a work from SPCK, is Eerdmans wrong for listing themselves as the publishers of the US edition?  If that is fine, then why can't Logos do this?

I can see at least two differences:

  • Eerdmans does hold the American rights. Logos holds no more rights than anyone else to a PD work.
  • At least in earlier times, Eerdmans and SPCK would have both worked directly from the manuscript, typing and typesetting their own individual copies. So their books would have been two distinct works, not in any way dependent on each other. I guess in these electronic times they may sometimes buy files from each other, but even in those cases they would normally adapt spelling and other language related things to their own and their country's standards, so the results would be more different than what a Logos edition is from the original edition.

"The Christian way of life isn't so much an assignment to be performed, as a gift to be received."  Wilfrid Stinissen

Mac Pro OS 10.9.

Posts 466
Butters | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 7:48 AM

fgh:
The publisher of the electronic version, yes -- if we really need a column for something that obvious -- but not the publisher.

That makes a lot of sense actually fgh - a distinction I hadn't even thought of.  

“To love means loving the unlovable.  To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable.  Faith means believing the unbelievable.  Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton

Posts 1720
LogosEmployee
Bob Pritchett | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 8:00 AM

I'll invest more time in this. It's a complicated problem to solve correctly, and I'm not even sure what our current practice is -- or if it's being implemented consistently.

In the past we used the original publisher's metadata everywhere, and my understanding is that we still do when we're working from a specific paper edition. In many (earlier) cases, though, we got files which were disassociated with a specific paper edition -- typed in on the Internet, provided to us by an enthusiast, etc. In these cases, we considered it an 'electronic edition' and acted as the publisher. (As a rule of thumb, if we had page numbers, it was tied to a specific edition; if not, it wasn't.) And rarely there was a specific paper edition, but we did extra editorial work that made our electronic version not match a specific paper edition.

We were kind of obsessive about paper equivalency -- it we said it was the same book, it usually was done to every word on the title page. We've loosened up a little bit on that now.

There has been on and off discussion of 'source' and 'electronic' edition metadata being distinguished, but we haven't yet implemented that distinction. There was also (in the past) ongoing debate about the correct way to cite -- the original paper source, or the exact electronic edition / source you were using.

We'll give this more discussion, and moving forward we are planning more metadata, including our own more precise set of dates, because we want to do interesting things where we can sort results of searches, etc. by the date of the language, of the ideas, etc. (For example, is there any 'right' date for a new electronic edition of a 1950's Zondervan reprint, with new preface and notes, of an 1880's translation of a 1600's work originally written in French? If you're tracing development of doctrinal issues, the 1600's is important. If you care about the English, the 1880's. If you're citing the English translation you might want the 1880's date, or the 1950's if you're quoting the notes or preface. And what if the electronic edition integrates the errata from the 1950's edition, correcting the French in the 1950's note you're quoting? Someone checking the 1950's paper won't see a match...)

And, of course, what if you want to sort instances of use of a Greek word by frequency of use in each century, but the dates on the Greek works are the dates of the Loeb editions, not the date of composition?

So we're thinking of:

composition-date: when the ideas were recorded

composition-language: language this text is translated from, if any

translation-date: when the text was translated into this language

editorial-work: when the text was edited, notes/preface, etc. added

electronic-edition: when this text was prepared and released as this electronic edition

What do you think?

Posts 466
Butters | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 8:04 AM

Very well thought out Mr. Pritchett!  

~Butters Smile

“To love means loving the unlovable.  To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable.  Faith means believing the unbelievable.  Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton

Posts 5621
Todd Phillips | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 8:12 AM

Bob Pritchett:

So we're thinking of:

composition-date: when the ideas were recorded

composition-language: language this text is translated from, if any

translation-date: when the text was translated into this language

editorial-work: when the text was edited, notes/preface, etc. added

electronic-edition: when this text was prepared and released as this electronic edition

What do you think?

I like the idea of all those values being available.  So would "editorial work" be what would appear in the citation? Or would the citation be necessarily more complex?

Wiki Links: Enabling Logging / Detailed Search Help - MacBook Pro (2014), ThinkPad E570

Posts 1083
William Gabriel | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 8:14 AM

Bob Pritchett:

So we're thinking of:

composition-date: when the ideas were recorded

composition-language: language this text is translated from, if any

translation-date: when the text was translated into this language

editorial-work: when the text was edited, notes/preface, etc. added

electronic-edition: when this text was prepared and released as this electronic edition

What do you think?

I think that's all good, and the person/publisher/institution who gets the credit should have fields that go along with those dates.

I'm not a publishing or reference geek, so I don't know what the specific handbook rules are for all of that data. I do know that if I'm research and come across a cross-reference, I would appreciate seeing all of that data so that I have the best opportunity possible of finding originals if I choose to look them up. It's like keeping a solid chain of custody on the work.

I do see how it works for musical copyrights, which I know is going to be different requirements from other written publications, but everyone involved gets the credit due them. Original lyricists and composers, translators, persons responsible for lyric modifications or additions, arrangers publishers and any other rights holders all appear in the copyright line. It can be a pain when I have to type it out on the Powerpoint slide Smile, but it also allowed me to research music the way I'd expect to be able to research theology (or any other written ideas).

Bill

Posts 433
Vincent Setterholm | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 8:31 AM

Caveat: This is not the official Logos answer - I haven't been in our text development department for years. I'm just feeling philosophical this morning.

I picked a book off my shelf almost at random: The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by Alfred Edersheim. All it says on the copyright page is: Copyright 1993, Hendrickson. The dated prefaces could give SOME idea of when this was originally printed, but they're really just dates for when the author wrote the prefaces (1883 for the first preface and 1886 for the second), and there's no indication anywhere of the original publisher or what print version was actually digitized. But this is still sufficient information for any style guide purposes to show where you got your quotations and trace your sources. There may be some academic advisors who would want a more detailed citation, which might force you to track down old print editions and check your quotes in them, but then you'd just cite the old edition you checked, because you can't assume you know which edition Hendrickson was digitizing unless you're going to do some serious text criticism.

The Logos edition does cite Logos as the publisher in the metadata, but also reproduces the title page of the edition we digitized: the eight edition, Longmans, Green & Co. 1896 - so that's more information than Hendrickson's print edition provides. But our metadata is a little funny here - we list the publisher as Logos, but the publication date as 1896. We've been around a long time, but not that long! I'd argue that it would have been better to follow the Hendrickson example and put the date we last edited this resource in the metadata, because that's what our edition really is - the Logos Bible Software, Bellingham, WA 2000-whatever edition. (Print books also have 'printings' which might correct some typos without rolling to a new 'edition' - in this example, my Edersheim hardcover is the 7th printing from 2002 - the equivalent of that in the digital world is the timestamp in the resource information window that shows the last time we compiled the book. If we gave up the, I think misguided, notion that we should cite digital editions as if we were really working from print [Doesn't that just buy into the myth that there's something inferior about working digitally? The good news is that there is a biological solution coming that will end that notion.], including that timestamp in the citation actually makes a lot of sense, just the way style guides often require a date on web page citations, because webpage content can change.)

So back to my print example. I'm citing Edersheim, and I run into a quote about the sun going dark around the time of the crucifixion, and I read "the sun craped its brightness". Since 'craped' isn't a word I'm familiar with, I get a much more amusing anthropomorphic image and this would be a delightful opportunity for a scholarly [sic], but what am I [sic]ing? If I cite this as the 1883, 1886 or 1896 edition, I better check my source, because this might be something introduced in the 1993 (or 2002) edition I'm actually using. It's just safer to cite what you're really using rather than pretending you're working from something else. [The Logos edition, and I assume the 8th printed edition, has 'draped', BTW. But you'd run into the same trap if you were [sic]ing something we introduced as if you were working from the print.]

Obviously, it is possible to provide longer citations with more information, if you have it. It'd be impossible to do with my particular hardcover Hendrickson edition, because the print doesn't have enough information, but citations of digital editions could go something like: Edersheim, Alfred, "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah". Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2000 [version 2010-11-16T22:09:22Z], from 8th print edition, New York: Longman, Green & Co.,1896. This doesn't actually 'solve' the problem of sorting on when the author was writing [what was Edersheim's involvement in the 8th edition? Maybe the last time he touched it was 1886. And what if we digitized the Hendrickson edition? Then the right 'print' source to cite would be Hendrickson 1993, 7th printing 2002, not Longman, Green & Co. 1883, 1886 or 1896]. But despite not letting one sort on something like 'when was Edersheim actually writing these thoughts' [which would be hard to produce, but perhaps an approximation could be stored in another piece of metadata that isn't used in citations], I suspect this type of full citation is really the only thing that will make academics really happy while not pretending to be working from editions that we aren't. Some variation on this would be better for modern copyrighted works, too, for all the same reasons. For political reasons, maybe we couldn't CALL ourselves the publisher (but I might be wrong there - when SBL reprints a Brill book in paperback for US distribution, they get to list themselves as the publisher, while also noting the original publisher in the copyright statement, so maybe this is perfectly normal). But that's not insurmountable, you just go with something like: Edersheim, Alfred, "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah". Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993 [7th printing 2002], digital edition: Logos Bible Software, Bellingham, WA 2000 [version 2010-11-16T22:09:22Z].

But, as previously noted by others on this thread, we don't make facsimile editions. OK, we've made a handful, but mostly these are new editions in at least the same was that the Hendrickson 1993 Edersheim is new, and often in more significant ways. My example so far was just an innocuous typo, but we make improvements as well. Say our compiler throws an error that Psalm 11:91 is not a real Bible verse, and we take a look and it's obvious that the author meant Psalm 119:1. We could just fix the tagging but leave the typo, but we'd eventually get typo reports on this and processing those has a cost and we still have to decide what to do with the report (fix it, not fix it?). If we're pretending to be the print edition, this is a problem. If we all stop pretending, we just fix it. If it's a modern work, we let the publisher know so that future print editions can be corrected as well [maybe we wait for approval, maybe not, depending on the nature of the correction and the contract/relationship with the publisher], and they love us for our attention to detail, and no one has to worry about a missed [sic] because we're all citing the digital edition.

 

Posts 433
Vincent Setterholm | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 8:32 AM

Doh! I see while I was busy rambling that Bob already replied.

Posts 29496
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 8:50 AM

Bob Pritchett:
What do you think?

Great! Thanks for taking the time to respond thoughtfully. May I cite you? Big Smile

macOS, iOS & iPadOS | Logs |  Install

Posts 11852
Forum MVP
NB.Mick | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 8:59 AM

Vincent Setterholm:

I see while I was busy rambling that Bob already replied.

Nevertheless your text was to the point - and put some much needed caveat to the "faithfully reproducing the typos from the print edition" idea, which IMHO limits the usefulness of electronic works (same goes for long S, ligatures and other fancy typographical stuff, unless the search engine can handle those transparently).

Running Logos 9 latest (beta) version on Win 10

Posts 13417
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 9:25 AM

Thanks for the detailed replies. I appreciate that there are differences between editions, that complicate this (but that's true of printed, not just electronic editions).

To keep it simple, I think the principle should be that the publication data in the library metadata matches the information in the front of the resource. If there's no date in the front of the resource, use www.worldcat.org to find out what the date should be (after all, that's what someone writing a paper will do).

If you're producing a copy of a copy, then you should use the earliest details where the pagination and typesetting match the copy you have. So, a 2008 Banner of Truth reprint of an 1874 edition should be dated 1874 if the pagination/typesetting haven't changed, or 2008 if it has. An original publication date would be useful in the latter case (when citing, this would normally be written as 2008 [1874]).

The point is that it I cite it as 1874, then someone with the 2008 edition will know whether the page numbers are the same (because his 2008 edition will make that clear). But if I cite it as 2008, then then guy with the 1874 edition will think his edition doesn't match, when it fact it might.

That said, I think one of the biggest problems is that the existing standards aren't being adhered to - and the Poor Man's Commentary is an example of that. Consistently adhering to the existing standards would be a good start, IMO.

Posts 13417
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 9:30 AM

Vincent Setterholm:
But, as previously noted by others on this thread, we don't make facsimile editions. OK, we've made a handful, but mostly these are new editions in at least the same was that the Hendrickson 1993 Edersheim is new, and often in more significant ways. My example so far was just an innocuous typo, but we make improvements as well. Say our compiler throws an error that Psalm 11:91 is not a real Bible verse, and we take a look and it's obvious that the author meant Psalm 119:1. We could just fix the tagging but leave the typo, but we'd eventually get typo reports on this and processing those has a cost and we still have to decide what to do with the report (fix it, not fix it?). If we're pretending to be the print edition, this is a problem. If we all stop pretending, we just fix it. If it's a modern work, we let the publisher know so that future print editions can be corrected as well [maybe we wait for approval, maybe not, depending on the nature of the correction and the contract/relationship with the publisher], and they love us for our attention to detail, and no one has to worry about a missed [sic] because we're all citing the digital edition.

I think this is a slight red-herring as print books are often reprinted with very minor corrections, that don't justify a new edition. In those cases, scholars will still cite the earlier date, not the date of the minor corrections. On the other hand, if the publisher declares that this is a new edition (substantial changes, new chapters, etc.), then scholars will cite the new date. Generally speaking, although there are very occasionally some grey areas, that system works perfectly well.

Posts 468
Anon | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 4:04 PM

David Bailey:

Mark Barnes:

Alan Macgregor:
The whole point of citation in academic papers is that one's academic peers can refer to the original text for themselves and see how one has arrived at one's use of the citation and evaluate it properly. If that citation refers by default to the electronic version of the text, then it may be difficult for non-Logos-using academics to evaluate the citation.

I agree 100%.

Yes

and having the citation engine follow exactly the published standards.

YesYes

 

Posts 233
Philip Larson | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 5:29 PM

I agree with Mark.

If the original publisher released it in 1810 (or whatever), I'd like to see that along with the original publisher. If I go to a nearby seminary library and find the original, I would like to be able to know they are the same.

I have no problem if it also says that Logos Bible Software republished it in 2013 (or whenever).

Posts 2883
Mike Childs | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 6:35 PM

YesYes  What Mark said!

"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley

Posts 1138
Tom Reynolds | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 9 2013 7:12 PM

Here, here! or is it Hear Hear! or H'ear H'ear!

Posts 2040
Unix | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Aug 10 2013 4:58 AM

I think Butters's idea is the best and necessary for books whit no significant editing by Logos. (Significant editing would be things like change of English dialect, quotes when there were only line pointers in the original. "Insignificant" editing would be routine correction of spelling errors, addition of page numbers to an electronic copy).

It would be good to have an extra citation option in some future version of Logos as a functionality that You would have to pay extra for that would insert the time stamp of the Logos Edition from the disk:

Butters:
Why not have two levels?

  1. In terms of marketing and whatnot, Logos continues to stamp these books with Logos as publisher and current year and all.
  2. HOWEVER, when you cite it, the citation automatically reflects the original rather than the Logos branded book? Obviously, Logos would have to make some changes to make this happen though.

This seems to satisfy both concerns?

 


Bob, all that would be really valuable, to some, well perhaps many. Other's might have reference works or academic books where they could look up most of that data and then add it manually. And most haven't expected this and wouldn't want to pay extra costs included in the SKU price when doing further purchases. The only thing I think everyone would be happy about, would be to get this information for their current books that have already been acquired.
I would suggest that Logos charges extra for that, in two different ways: when a customer that has the SKU goes to the product page, he/she would be able to pay an extra fee - whereby this additional data would be downloaded for that particular book/set/collection. And the other way of charging for it would be a "subscription" that would automatically charge that fee for all books that have been either bought at any point or purchased for $0 in the users library, and would continue to charge the additional fee for new purchases for as long as the subscription would be valid. All this may sound a bit complicated when hearing it for the first time but it's pretty straight-forward when You think about it:

Bob Pritchett:
So we're thinking of:

composition-date: when the ideas were recorded

composition-language: language this text is translated from, if any

translation-date: when the text was translated into this language

editorial-work: when the text was edited, notes/preface, etc. added

electronic-edition: when this text was prepared and released as this electronic edition

What do you think?

Disclosure!
trulyergonomic.com
48G AMD octacore V9.2 Acc 11

Posts 2040
Unix | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Aug 10 2013 5:05 AM

In that case I think the Logos Desktop Software citation engine should add in the citation something like this: [reference(s) corrected by Logos Edition] upon quoting text that has corrections:

Vincent Setterholm:
Say our compiler throws an error that Psalm 11:91 is not a real Bible verse, and we take a look and it's obvious that the author meant Psalm 119:1. We could just fix the tagging but leave the typo, but we'd eventually get typo reports on this and processing those has a cost and we still have to decide what to do with the report (fix it, not fix it?).


EDIT: I did not read Vincent's post other than the first couple of rows when writing my previous post from 4:58 AM, he mentioned something like this:

Unix:
It would be good to have an extra citation option in some future version of Logos as a functionality that You would have to pay extra for that would insert the time stamp of the Logos Edition

Disclosure!
trulyergonomic.com
48G AMD octacore V9.2 Acc 11

Posts 8899
fgh | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Aug 12 2013 10:44 AM

Bob Pritchett:
There has been on and off discussion of 'source' and 'electronic' edition metadata being distinguished, but we haven't yet implemented that distinction.

Not sure what you mean by that, as it looks pretty implemented to me (just not consistently):

Bob Pritchett:
moving forward we are planning more metadata, including our own more precise set of dates, because we want to do interesting things where we can sort results of searches, etc. by the date of the language, of the ideas, etc. (...) 

So we're thinking of:

composition-date: when the ideas were recorded

composition-language: language this text is translated from, if any

translation-date: when the text was translated into this language

editorial-work: when the text was edited, notes/preface, etc. added

electronic-edition: when this text was prepared and released as this electronic edition

YesYesYesYesYes

Vincent Setterholm:
our metadata is a little funny here - we list the publisher as Logos, but the publication date as 1896. We've been around a long time, but not that long! I'd argue that it would have been better to follow the Hendrickson example and put the date we last edited this resource in the metadata, because that's what our edition really is

Then you'll be glad to know that the metadata is less "funny" than you thinkWink:

Vincent Setterholm:
Say our compiler throws an error that Psalm 11:91 is not a real Bible verse, and we take a look and it's obvious that the author meant Psalm 119:1. (...) (fix it, not fix it?)

Suggestion: do both! Let the normal reader see only the correct text, but add a Show typos in the original Visual Filter, which, when checked, would make the text look something like "... [Psalm 11:91Psalm 119:1 ...". This would:

  1. Solve the problem with things not showing up in searches because of a typo.
  2. Solve the Academic need for exact quotes.
  3. Give you fewer typo reports.

Mark Barnes:
I think the principle should be that the publication data in the library metadata matches the information in the front of the resource. If there's no date in the front of the resource, use www.worldcat.org to find out what the date should be (...)

If you're producing a copy of a copy, then you should use the earliest details where the pagination and typesetting match the copy you have.

Yes (for now)

Mark Barnes:
That said, I think one of the biggest problems is that the existing standards aren't being adhered to - and the Poor Man's Commentary is an example of that. Consistently adhering to the existing standards would be a good start, IMO.

Yes

Mark Barnes:
print books are often reprinted with very minor corrections, that don't justify a new edition. In those cases, scholars will still cite the earlier date, not the date of the minor corrections.

I don't know about the US, but in Sweden the year in the citation is very frequently the printing year (at least it used to be).

"The Christian way of life isn't so much an assignment to be performed, as a gift to be received."  Wilfrid Stinissen

Mac Pro OS 10.9.

Posts 5318
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Aug 12 2013 2:51 PM

Bob Pritchett:

So we're thinking of:

composition-date: when the ideas were recorded

composition-language: language this text is translated from, if any

translation-date: when the text was translated into this language

editorial-work: when the text was edited, notes/preface, etc. added

electronic-edition: when this text was prepared and released as this electronic edition

Sounds good, but original publisher is always a good thing to have opening to copyright page of a book by Fleming H Revell Company Publishers

Originally published in the UK by Hunt and Thorpe

Having this in would works well I think.. for example


Lange, J. P., Schaff, P., Zöckler, O., & Murphy, J. G. (2008). A commentary on the Holy Scriptures: 1 & 2 Chronicles. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software. Originally published New York,  Charles Scriber's Sons

PS: Publication date would be nice too… I only saw the date of the german original not the publication date for the translation.

Page 2 of 3 (43 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next > | RSS