16 replies to this topic

[Tom Castle]

Does Accordance have Barnes Notes on the OT?

[Helen Brown]

No, do you know who has an etext for it?

[DanG]

No, do you know who has an etext for it?

Online Bible and eSword both have it available.

[Greg Terry]

ccel.org has the following available:

Notes on the Old Testament Explanatory and Practical: Daniel Vol. 1
Notes on the Old Testament Explanatory and Practical: Daniel vol. 2
Notes on the Old Testament Explanatory and Practical: Isaiah Vol. 2
Notes on the Old Testament Explanatory and Practical: Isaiah Volume I
Notes on the Old Testament Explanatory and Practical: Job Vol. 1
Notes on the Old Testament Explanatory and Practical: Psalms Vol. 1
Notes on the Old Testament Explanatory and Practical: Psalms Vol. 2
Notes on the Old Testament Explanatory and Practical: Psalms Vol. 3

[Tom Castle]

Helen... This in the pipeline anywhere?

[Helen Brown]

We haven't had much interest in it. Anyone else want this in Accordance?

[Donovan R. Palmer]

I would personally rank journals ahead of Barnes Notes. I've got them in another format and they are interesting for me from time to time, but for example Themelios would be much more helpful.

[circuitrider]

I would really like to see Barnes OT in my Accordance Library. I used Barnes OT regularly until I moved over to Accordance. He may not fit the 'critical' mold of modern scholarship but he is still very good, in my opinion.

[Tony Lawrence]

We haven't had much interest in it. Anyone else want this in Accordance?

I think this is one of those questions that most would say they would want it, but at what price? I am not just talking about cost to us the consumer either though that would be significant to most of us. What would it cost in terms of delaying other projects? Most of us are on rather limited budgets and purchasing it would cost us buying something else. Its hard to compete with free on other platforms. While it were easy to encode the text and it could be released at a very modest price then I would be for it. However if it were to delay or supplant other offerings then I would encourage Accordance to pursue other projects.

Tony Lawrence

[Michael J. Bolesta]

I think this is one of those questions that most would say they would want it, but at what price? I am not just talking about cost to us the consumer either though that would be significant to most of us. What would it cost in terms of delaying other projects? Most of us are on rather limited budgets and purchasing it would cost us buying something else. Its hard to compete with free on other platforms. While it were easy to encode the text and it could be released at a very modest price then I would be for it. However if it were to delay or supplant other offerings then I would encourage Accordance to pursue other projects.

Tony Lawrence

Tony raises a good point. As a long time user, I greatly appreciate the breadth of Accordance offerings. We all have resources that we would like to see on Accordance, but given limited time & resources, only some can be developed. The forum has been a mechanism for OakTree to garner information about user requests, but it has limitations. It represents those who frequent the forum and are "squeaky wheels" (making "wants" known, sometimes often). That is not all bad, but it does not reflect all users (some probably do not even check the forum).

Another limitation is that users do not know what is already in the pipeline. The policy of only letting us know when the product is done is certainly understandable. OakTree has never promised vaporware (okay, Great Scott has been delayed). Would it make sense to publish a list of times close to completion (as you have with Pratico-VanPelt)? It would help users budget for items of interest.

I am not sure if there is a good mechanism for folks to vote once on a product possibility in an OakTree database to help guide the company in assessing product demand, but it might help. It might list items by category, letting users rate the potential product on a scale.

These are suggestions and musings, not complaints. It is amazing how diverse your offerings are, covering a wide theological spectrum and serving scholars, ministers, and folks who just want to grow in their relationship with Jesus Christ. May the LORD bless your ongoing ministry.

[Rick Bennett]

Tony raises a good point. As a long time user, I greatly appreciate the breadth of Accordance offerings. We all have resources that we would like to see on Accordance, but given limited time & resources, only some can be developed. The forum has been a mechanism for OakTree to garner information about user requests, but it has limitations. It represents those who frequent the forum and are "squeaky wheels" (making "wants" known, sometimes often). That is not all bad, but it does not reflect all users (some probably do not even check the forum).

Another limitation is that users do not know what is already in the pipeline. The policy of only letting us know when the product is done is certainly understandable. OakTree has never promised vaporware (okay, Great Scott has been delayed). Would it make sense to publish a list of times close to completion (as you have with Pratico-VanPelt)? It would help users budget for items of interest.

I am not sure if there is a good mechanism for folks to vote once on a product possibility in an OakTree database to help guide the company in assessing product demand, but it might help. It might list items by category, letting users rate the potential product on a scale.

These are suggestions and musings, not complaints. It is amazing how diverse your offerings are, covering a wide theological spectrum and serving scholars, ministers, and folks who just want to grow in their relationship with Jesus Christ. May the LORD bless your ongoing ministry.

The problem with announcing upcoming releases is that delays inevitably occur (major case-in-point LSJ), and we prefer not to string users along with excuses. However, I do think we could discuss doing this in certain cases, especially with resources that have been long awaited and/or are available on other platforms; would hate to see people purchase them elsewhere only to find out we have them after all.

[Fr. Rich]

The statement about not purchasing modules elsewhere if they are about to appear in Accordance is well taken. Because I knew that Accordance was developing NICNT?NICOT, I resisted the temptation to purchase elsewhere. I would really rather have my resources in Accordance. It is the program I start with and usually the one I stay with except for the Anchor Bible Commentaries, the Interpretation Commentaries and certain catholic materials (The Birth of the Messiah, The Death of the Messiah) that are only available from others. At least with some of these series, purchasing them once is a big expense and having to purchase them twice is in most cases, more than I can do.

[Michael J. Bolesta]

The problem with announcing upcoming releases is that delays inevitably occur (major case-in-point LSJ), and we prefer not to string users along with excuses. However, I do think we could discuss doing this in certain cases, especially with resources that have been long awaited and/or are available on other platforms; would hate to see people purchase them elsewhere only to find out we have them after all.

That conservative policy is understandable, and makes sense for the most part. However, would it be possible to have a central repository that lets users know something about proposed resources like 1) attempts to obtain text/license unsuccessful 2) inquires have been made, but no development in the near future 3) in development, but too soon to project release date 4) in development but delays encountered. If for example the database indicated that LSJ was 3 or 4, we could all "cool it" and let you do your work. The web page could prominently display the caveat: this is current status and information is subject to change.

None of those would commit OakTree, and might help those contemplating obtaining them in some form, electronic or otherwise. There are modules I would really like (certain Anchor Bible commentaries and Anchor Reference works), but the ones I use most I have in print, and can "make do." If and when they became available in Accordance I would strongly consider purchase. I have BDAG both and print. The former collects dust, but the Accordance module is heavily used.

These are simply suggestions. I see the forum heavily populated by diverse "wishes" that perhaps could be put into perspective with judicious release of information.

Once again, thanks for all you do at OakTree!

[Helen Brown]

I certainly understand your curiosity, but we simply cannot discuss licenses which we are still negotiating. These negotiations can take a very long time, and we have to keep them confidential. When we do get a license, we still need to get an etext and assign developer time, and even then we sometimes run into unexpected major problems, such as with the TDNT Complete which we anounced in November and still have not cleaned up to our satisfaction.

[Michael J. Bolesta]

I certainly understand your curiosity, but we simply cannot discuss licenses which we are still negotiating. These negotiations can take a very long time, and we have to keep them confidential. When we do get a license, we still need to get an etext and assign developer time, and even then we sometimes run into unexpected major problems, such as with the TDNT Complete which we anounced in November and still have not cleaned up to our satisfaction.

Thanks Helen!

[Fr. Rusty]

I think Fr. Rich's point stated my own feelings pretty well, I start and end usually with Accordance, but there are certain materials I have to have that are not here, so I have other programs for them. I would rather have them all in Accordance, but understand that is not reality. However, if I know something I need is coming to Accordance, I can't think of any reason I would not wait and have that resource here where it would work so much better.

[Alistair]

Considering the age of Barne's notes, and the fact that it is freely available (e.g. http://www.ccel.org/...es/ntnotes.html) my preference is for more modern/up-to-date resources that would be under copyright.

However, if there is a real demand, what is to stop all those who want Barnes in Accordance from collaborating to create a user tool or notes file from the CCEL text, and sharing it?

Furthermore OakTree could then convert that user-created tool to an official reference tool.

Edited by Alistair, 10 May 2012 - 07:30 PM.