TMG-L ArchivesArchiver > TMG > 2006-12 > 1166106889
From: Terry Reigel <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Source of a source of a source of a source ... HELP!
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:34:49 -0500
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:53:11 -0600, Linda Kuhn wrote:
> 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.
I think the reason is part historical and part simplicity. The Mills
templates were developed before TMG offered split CDs. The templates
try to place the various source elements in the same order they appear
in the examples in Evidence! With only a single CD element to work
with, it's simplest to place the [CD] element at the end of the note,
so any comments you want to make about that citation appear there.
This works fine for Books for example, because the only detail other
than comments you will likely enter is the page number. But for
marriage records, Mills' example places the names of the couple first.
That means if the TMG template were to be more generic, the [CD]
element would have to appear first to accommodate the names. Then, if
you had page numbers to enter, or comments for the citation, you would
have no place to put them.
With the advent of split citations you can do both. You can create a
template that puts the names in CD1, the date in CD2, page number if
used in CD3, and any comments in CD4, as an example. Thus your
marriage book source would be in a "lumper" style like the standard
Book sources. (Of course, you could also ignore the order of the
elements in the examples, and just put all the details in one place
with an un-split CD.)
TMG has not adopted this approach for the standard source templates,
and I can imagine for several reasons, including... 1) it requires
making the templates different than those existing, so a user would
see different templates in new data sets than in existing ones; and 2)
entering split CDs is more complicated than non-split and is probably
best left to more advanced users, who create their own templates.
> Now I understand splitting and I understand lumping. But,
> once you get past the point of personal preference in
> that regard, does the technique really matter so long as
> the end result accurately portrays the source?
Not so far as I can see. In fact, I spit some source types and lump
others, depending on the kind of source, number of similar sources,
and my mood at the moment. <g>
|Re: [TMG] Source of a source of a source of a source ... HELP! by Terry Reigel <>|