PAF-5-USERS-L ArchivesArchiver > PAF-5-USERS > 2002-10 > 1035240089
From: "Clive W Carpenter \(NZPAFUG\)" <>
Subject: RE: [PAF-5] Questions independant cities 2
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:41:29 +1300
I agree, I think this has gone on long enough, in the PAF Users guide,
it says to have Smallest to Largest with the Country always LAST.
Some Examples are
City - County - State - Country
Parish - Town - County - Country
Burgh - City - Province - Country
Even native people can be cattered for.
Sub Tribe - Tribe - Nation - Country
THat is why we no longer have 4 seperate Fields as such, though PAF uses the
"," to seperate them for searching and reporting.
Data Integrity is one of the most important things in any database, and
sloppy input means sloppy output.
PAF Liasion Officer
From: Stewart Millar [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, 22 October 2002 11:16 a.m.
Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Questions independant cities 2
Perhaps its because I am not an American ---- but really, I cannot believe
there is so much discussion about place names ----- in PAF, there are 4
levels of place names, call them what you like ---- you should try (with
some amusement) fitting British or European place names into such a
regularised (American) view of place names (City - County - State -
Country) --- use the 4 levels (or less) sensibly to fit the circumstances
(but - always end with a country!). The tie to source records is not
provided by the structure of the place name but by the address of the source
repository for the event. And yes, I know of the focus/filter/custom report
feature to match this American ideal of place names --- but there are ways
==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ====