TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-09 > 1030877920


From: "Darrell A. Martin" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Research & Output Solutions
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 06:01:41 -0500
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020830194543.041f8e98@pop3.norton.antivirus><5.1.0.14.0.20020830172308.00a0ce30@pop.sprynet.com><5.1.0.14.2.20020830095740.027fdf90@pop3.norton.antivirus><5.1.0.14.0.20020830004411.00a09d90@pop.sprynet.com><KBEEJNHPFAMCGLNKDFEFMEFAENAA.rdamon@beltronicsinc.com><5.1.0.14.0.20020829211843.00a17b50@pop.sprynet.com><5.1.0.14.2.20020830231229.02806a30@pop3.norton.antivirus><005901c250fc$ed75dba0$153ad843@oemcomputer>
In-Reply-To: <3D71B4EB.FE9FAA25@sbcglobal.net>


At 11:34 PM 8/31/02 -0700, Diana Powell wrote:
>[snip]
>Rae Jean,
> I have not implemented Second Site yet, so I don't know if what I am
>doing will be a problem in that regard or not, but since I have been
>using the same three tags that you have (Birth, Birth-est, Birth-alt) I
>thought I would toss this into the fray.
>
>When I first find a birth date for an individual (same applies to marr
>or death) I create a birth tag and cite it accordingly. If I then find
>a different date I have to decide if I have enough information to use
>one over the other. If I decide the original date was most likely
>correct I enter the conflicting information as an Birth-alt tag and put
>an exclusion marker in front of the sentence. This becomes strictly a
>research tag. The original birth tag remains primary and prints in my
>reports. I usually add the conflicting source as an additional citation
>on the original birth tag and explain in the CD what date it offered and
>why I believe it is wrong. I often add this explanation in the memo of
>the birth tag as well and add [M] to my sentence structure.
>[snip further interesting details]

>Diana Powell

Hi, Diana:

I can't see anything that you are doing that would have an adverse affect
on Second Site. SS honors exclusion markers, with options, so your
"research tags" will not clutter things up any more than they do on your
printed reports (unless you *ask* SS to include those with single exclusion
markers).

You have implemented a "system" that, from what I can see, makes some
sense. However, it also appears to me to be a LOT of work. I have found it
simpler to make sure that *every* tag type default sentence has [M] (or an
otherwise unused subfield of [M]) in it. Simple commentary on questionable
or conflicting conclusions (among other things) go there, where such may be
of interest to a *READER*. A fellow *RESEARCHER* will look at the citations
of source and reasoning which I provide.

This seems to me a more natural use of the TMG approach: one event, one
tag; conclusions are tag info, citations are evidence and reasoning info.
However, we all know TMG has 9 different ways of doing everything, and some
people are using #17 to good effect [grin]. Since my focus, from the very
beginnings of my use of computers in genealogy on the CP/M Kaypro, has been
on creating properly documented output from sources already in hand, I do
not have much interest in tweaking TMG's structure to create research
reminders (whether that research has been done, or whether it needs to be).
As I, someday, exhaust the voluminous material that was handed down to me,
I may change my mind. If that happens I will look very carefully at the
research tools that are in TMG "out of the box", rather than create a tag
system of my own. I think [big grin].

Darrell


Darrell A. Martin
a native Vermonter currently in exile in Addison, Illinois



This thread: