TMG-L ArchivesArchiver > TMG > 2010-12 > 1292760374
From: "Darrell A. Martin" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Always specific names for specific events? Bad idea.
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 06:06:14 -0600
References: <201012171432.oBHEWxkZ012827@mail.rootsweb.com> <2010121795233.861204@Terry> <201012171518.oBHFIZ76001812@mail.rootsweb.com> <4D0B9B48.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4D0BDDFA.email@example.com> <4D0C3441.firstname.lastname@example.org> <001c01cb9eba$63f6b790$2be426b0$@net><4D0CDCCB.email@example.com>
This topic has covered a lot of ground. Some miscellaneous comments:
- In some of my messages, I assume but do not make clear that I have
concluded that the person who appears in one record is the same person
who appears in another. I must make that decision to determine how to
proceed with data entry. Lee weighed in on this point, to good effect.
- In many, perhaps even the majority, of cases, the difference between
how I do things and how someone who focuses on duplicating the name
found in the record would do them, is either minimal or there is no
difference at all.
- The most frequent place where these things seem to cause trouble is
in the entry of census records. I wonder how many people would enter the
name for "Beth" in the following common example
Dutton, John HOH
- Terms like "actual name" or "real name" do not necessarily help. I
have sometimes used them when I should not. TMG requires a Primary Name
be assigned to every person record. For me, that name is an identifier;
I do my best to conform it to the name of the person as they themselves
believed their legal full name was, but in the case of the illiterate or
in colonial records, that idea may not even make sense.
|Re: [TMG] Always specific names for specific events? Bad idea. by "Darrell A. Martin" <>|