TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2006-12 > 1166073753


From: "Karenhappuch" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Source of a source of a source of a source ... HELP!
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:22:33 -0700
References: <000101c71f3b$c6f205f0$6501a8c0@LindaHome>


A source is what goes in the bibliography. Footnotes/endnotes are
citations.. In the Evidence chart Mills uses the term Bibliographic Entry,
but on her newer QuickSheet she uses Source List Entry instead. Both seem
to refer to the bibliography and the source of "Ohio Stark County Marriage
Records.... " would be fine. The citations (footnotes/endnotes) are called
primary citation and subsequent citation in Evidence. On the QuickSheet
Mills uses the terms full reference note and short reference note.
Or at least that's what I get from Evidence & the Quicksheet.

Barbara
----- Original Message -----
From: "Linda Kuhn" <>
> A musing ...
>
> I do prefer the Mills models. But. The problem I have with the Mills
> models,
> as translated into TMG, is that *some* tend to force one to be a splitter
> at
> times when (imho) there's really no need. When we use the Mills model for
> say "Book (Authored)", we create a single source for the book and put the
> page number in the CD. The source functions like a Lump but reads like a
> Split in the final output.
>
> So why, then, does the Mills model discourage a source called (say) "Jones
> County Marriage Records, Book 2" and using that (with appropriate CD)?
> Instead, it asks us to create a separate source for every single MR
> extracted from that book. That seems inconsistent to me.


This thread: