TMG-L ArchivesArchiver > TMG > 2001-01 > 0978760874
From: "Astrid Kranzbuhler" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] detail or memo preference?
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 17:01:14 +1100
References: <1802C8E6EC5FD4119C180090277C544A40305E@pop.sacredheart.edu> <002201c07732$6310f620$a20af7a5@700>
AND to add another aspect:
Keep in mind that, in TMG, the DETAIL field is _part_of_the_place_.
This means that every time you enter different info into the DETAIL field,
each one will be listed separately in the Master Source List.
The DETAIL field is really meant to be used for, well, details of the place,
e.g. maybe: names of hospitals, courts, streets or whatever to further
identify the location.
> Matthew Bielawa asked:
> >>I have a question. From your experience, what are the
> advantages/disadvantages to using either the DETAIL field or MEMO field
> the following types of data:
> 1. religion
> 2. cause of death <<
> Teresa has already given you a sound answer. Let me add a couple thoughts:
> 1. By using the MEMO field for such information, you give yourself
> space for elaboration, a capability you would miss by using the DETAIL.
> It's easier, I think, to use DETAIL consistently and exclusively for
> place information, such as -- in a burial tag -- "three rows west of the
> prominent Hosmer monument".
> 2. We've run across a couple situations in which the initial cause of
> judgment was overruled by a subsequent post mortem. For these we added a
> custom Inquest tag, for which the default sentence structure is
> An inquest was held <[D]> <[L]> into the cause of [PP] death. <[M]>
> This allows us to record both findings in adequate detail.
> Cliff Watts - Written at Westborough, MA
|Re: [TMG] detail or memo preference? by "Astrid Kranzbuhler" <>|