TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2003-05 > 1053697130


From: Terry Reigel <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Source export from TMG
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 09:38:50 -0400
In-Reply-To: <195.1aa86f01.2bff291c@aol.com>


On Fri, 23 May 2003 03:34:52 EDT, wrote:

> I am used to
>being able to generate a Source Report including the Note
>field. If I need it, I can put this on my Palm too as a
>Word document. TMG currrently has no such source report.
>However, thanks to Caroline teaching me about source types
>etc, I have by now understood that one could work round
>this problem in TMG by "stealing" the Bibliographical
>output style and pasting the full footnote output into
>that space. That way TMG Source List Report will produce
>the list I need for my research.

As Caroline notes, the [CD] element is invalid in the bibliographic
field (because it is used in each citation, and in a bibliography the
program has no way of knowing which citation to take the CD from.
With that change, this should work fine. As Beth notes, it's too bad
you have to do this, as the offering of a footnote format in the list
of Sources Report would make it unnecessary.

>Can a TMG user tell me what the Bibliographic output is
>really intended for? And whether I am likely to miss it?

The Bibliographic output is intended to provide a bibliography, that
is list of sources, to accompany any report you produce. I don't see
much value in it, and never use it, because it doesn't tell anything
about what information comes from what source. I prefer using only
source notes.

There are some differences in the general standards between
bibliography entries and footnote entries, as you can see by
comparing the templates for footnotes and bibliographies. In addition
to the entries in the bibliography being more general, the order of
the elements is different. The main change that will impact what you
are doing is the order of the names for sources with authors.
Footnotes show them as given name surname, while bibliographies list
them as surname, given name (so the entries can be sorted by
surname). When you copy the footnote template into the bibliography
templates, you will see any authors listed in output in the surname,
given name format. I doubt this matters to you.

So, the main issue is, if you ever want to produce a bibliography
report, the entries will not be in the generally accepted formats.

>What is the Bibliography Report? When I try to print this,
>TMG answers that the cumulative bibliography is empty.
>Although I have plenty of endnotes.
>Can anyone suggest another solution?

The Bibliography Report is similar to the Endnote Report. In both
cases, you first run the regular report, say a narrative, with the
options set for endnotes and/or bibliography. The report runs, and
the data is saved for the bibliography and endnotes. Then you run the
Bibliography or Endnote report, and it picks up the notes from the
previous reports. If you run more than one regular report, you will
be asked if you want to accumulate the endnotes and/or bibliography
data. Saying yes allows you to create a set of reports with a common
set of endnotes or bibliography.

The reason the bibliography report is empty when you try to run it is
that you have not previously run a report with bibliography specified
in the options.

All of the above refers to output to screen and text. When you output
to a word processor (when that becomes available) the notes and
bibliography are produced as part of the word processor file.


Terry Reigel



This thread: