TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2006-12 > 1166129813


From: "Linda Kuhn" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Source of a source of a source of a source ... HELP!
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:56:53 -0600
In-Reply-To: <20061214182030.LNYL24264.ibm62aec.bellsouth.net@Lee.acm.org>


Lee,

It really helps me when I understand why something is done in a particular
way. So, thank you for the expanded explanation on why the Mills templates
are the way they are.

> >Using your email example, I wonder: Is the Source the Correspondent
> >who wrote the email or is the Source the actual email itself?
>
> The Source would be the email, or the letter, or the book, or the
> chart, etc. The only way you would cite the person as the Source
> would be in an Interview type Source and even then the Source is
> really the interview itself (and hopefully the notes taken and/or the
> recording made).

Yes, I suppose that would have to be right. I wouldn't cite an Author of a
Book as a Source. When it comes to correspondence, I have just always tended
to think of the Author as the Source and the letter or email as the CD. I've
got some cleanup to do in that area. <g>

> The citation and the bibliography serve two different purposes.

Right. My confusion is something else. Continuing with the Mills "E-Mail
Message" template example ...

The Full footnote:
[AUTHOR], "[TITLE]," e-mail message from [AUTHOR E-MAIL] ([ADDRESS]) to
[RECIPIENT]<, [DATE]><, [CD]><. Hereinafter cited as "[SHORT TITLE]">.

The Bibliography:
[AUTHOR] "[TITLE]." E-mail message from [AUTHOR E-MAIL] at [ADDRESS]<.
[DATE]>.

As you can see, the only substantive difference between the two is that the
Bibliography omits the Recipient and the CD. With this model, the size of
the Bibliography could balloon out of control. So my question is, what
benefit is there in the redundancy of citing specific emails *in the
Bibliography* when it could be avoided merely by removing [DATE] from the
template? Then again, maybe that question is better put to Ms. Mills. <g>

> As for determining how much to split and how much to lump, yes that
> is personal preference. Part of the answer comes by figuring how
> many Source that you want in your project/data set.

You mean I have to pick a number? *_* <LOL>

> Personally, I go for the happy medium and have about two thousand
> Sources for 40-plus thousand people. That is still a lot of
> Sources.

That's roughly the same ratio as what I have in my big UFT import project
... a little over 3K sources for ~45K people. And I was an avowed lumper
back then. <g>

> At times, I will "turn off" (deactivate) some Sources so
> they don't appear in my Master Source List (MSL). This makes the MSL
> much easier to handle and easier to find certain Sources.

I'm glad that feature is available, though I haven't yet used it. I'm still
cleaning the swamp, if you will, and haven't felt comfortable deactivating
anything.

> So there will always be a "battle" within your mind as to which way to go.

So in other words I'm doomed? <g>

*sigh*



This thread: