APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2009-06 > 1245750204

From: "Peter J Seymour" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Will any one software program do these 3 (ideally,these 5) things?
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 09 08:50:39

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:43:08 -0500, wrote:

>Linda wrote:
>> does anyone on the list have a satisfactory work-around for the three
>features I consider
>must-haves but don't find in a single program? They are, in order of
>>1. Include source templates based on Evidence Explained
>Peter then wrote:
>> Do you want to enter and store the data strictly in these formats, or do
>you just want to be able to output in these formats?
>Peter, there's a fundamental issue here, one that strikes at the core of the
>question _What is the purpose of documentation?_
>The old "reason for citing sources" that we still continue to hear is this:
>"We cite sources so others will know where we got our information." In that
>mindset, source citation focuses upon OUTput. This journal or that press


>>From the standpoint of output, we all recognize that many differences exist
>in the house-styles of journals and presses that traditionally strip down
>citations to the barest minimum possible. Their goal is indeed that of
>simply telling readers where to go to find a source. The style manuals they
>follow (CMOS, MLA, etc.) were designed specifically to accomplish that goal
>with the greatest economy possible for the publisher. If we wish to be
>published by a journal or press, at their expense, we are obliged to follow
>their style--at OUTput. But, as serious, analytical researchers, if our
>software allows us to INput Evidence-style citations, then we are assured
>that whatever "house-style" a journal or press requires us to use, we'll
>have at hand--without any additional work--all the details that publisher
>Bottom line: the formats Linda expects from her program focus on INput,
>because the quality of INput determines the eventual quality of OUTput.
>Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
That was my point really. My concern was that the data captured should not restrict the
output options where a number of disparate outputs were possible. We perhaps differ
in that I am trying to take a broader view of what data items might be relevant. It is a
question of whether we have as you say "all the details that publisher requires" where
"publisher" equates with a form of output. It is difficult to go any further with the argument
because we will drift into issues of whether we are talking about just a citation or also
about elements of content.
I come to this as a part time software developer, so you are certainly providing food for
thought on the subject.

This thread: