TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2006-04 > 1145511706


From: "DeAnna Burghart" <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] Prioritizing the Wishlist (was Copying Tag)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 22:41:52 -0700
In-Reply-To: <200642004437.329346@Terry3>


OR, you could have ONE citation for "family correspondence" that detailed
the relationship of the data and sources in the footnote. (she says, lumpily
<g>)

Actually, if we get the sentence melding, punctuation obliterating codes we
requested last month (month before?) this one would probably be largely
addressed, because I presume that it would handle the citations in exactly
that way, e.g.

John Smith died 13 Apr 1776(1) and was buried in Oak Lawn Cemetery(2).

... which is probably what the majority of people really want it for,
anyway. But, then, that might be assuming too much, as we didn't address
sources in that proposal, did we?

DeAnna




-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Reigel [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 9:45 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [TMG] Prioritizing the Wishlist (was Copying Tag)


On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 04:07:15 +0000, wrote:
> Terry,
>
> Think of four aunts writing about the birth. Each letter
> gives a single piece of info. One mentions it was on a
> sunday- letter not dated. One mentions it was in April-
> letter not dated. Another mentions it was on the 16th of
> last month- but the letter isn't dated! One mentions it
> was last year and is dated 1875.

But that's not the real world. Generally there are several sources,
with overlapping information. #1 says it's Sunday. #2 says it's in
April of 1874. #3 says it's April 16. #4 says it's in 1874. #5 says
the middle of April 1874. So you end up with:

Sunday (1) April (2, 3, 5) 16 (3, 5) 1874 (2, 5)

So 2 and 3 are cited twice, 5 is cited three times?

And don't forget, you repeat all this for the detail, city, county,
state, country, and maybe more. Likewise for title, first, second,
third... and surnames, and suffix.

> As for the situation you mention.. how it was handled
> would depend on how the user does sources- lomps or
> splits ;)

No, not at all. You need to be consistent across all data, or the
reader won't have a clue what you mean. You can't mix item-by-item
citations and "whole" date cites - the reader won't have any way to
know which cites apply to which items, especially when you have a mix
of them in a single tag. If you have some tags detailed out and others
not, should the reader assume the tags without details have no sources
cited for the details, or what? <g>

My point is, this would have to be thought out in detail in order to
create an understandable output.

Terry


==== TMG Mailing List ====
Send all messages and replies to <>.


This thread: