TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2005-01 > 1104562853


From: "Darrell A. Martin" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Baby Step 3 - Checking my output as I go
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 07:00:53 +0000
References: <200501010511.j015BusV009168@mail.rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <200501010511.j015BusV009168@mail.rootsweb.com>


At 05:12 AM 1/1/2005, Sue Richart wrote:
>Since, I had information already in my project, I'm going through each item
>and adding the stuff that either wasn't there or in the wrong place. Right
>now, I'm going through my father's information. For example, I entered his
>occupation when I was born. Clicking on the Sentence button on the tag
>page, I can look to see what will print out. Basically, is it going to look
>to the Memo field or Citation for some of the information? Once I've done a
>couple of items, I'll go to the Report dropdown and call up the Individual
>Narrative report for the individual, my father in this case. Leaving a date
>in the Date field and not just in the Sort Date field really stands out when
>checking the narrative. Is this the best way of doing it?
>
>Sue

Hi, Sue:

SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ASKED
------------------------
Sentence output comes from: (1) the sentence structure, custom if it exists, Tag Type default otherwise; interacting with, (2) the fields into which data has been entered, as managed by sentence variables such as [A], [L], and [D] (for age, location, and date). There are a gazillion of these variables. The single most complex and flexible is the Tag Memo field, variable [M], which can be split into subfields. Ver. 6 has added Witness Memos (hurrah!) which adds to both the complexity and the flexibility. The design of sentences can become a Black Art requiring a boiling cauldron of split memos, alternate language output, living/non-living alternatives, and on and on. Don't let that suck you in for at *least* six months [grin].

The *sentence* will not have information taken from the Source, the Citation, or the Citation Detail. However, depending on report options, you may *embed* the citation reference in the sentence. It is still not really part of the sentence, but it will be inserted into the sentence (embedded citations, in the Memo field) or appended. Except for embedded citation references, everything having to do with sources will be a footnote, an endnote, in a bibliography, or omitted.

I would strongly recommend that you not develop a habit of omitting dates from Tags. Even after years of data entry, I still find myself occasionally putting dates *back* into Tags. I almost never take them out anymore. One can use alternate Roles, even alternate Tag Types, to fine tune the output without leaving important information out of the basic Tag fields.

EDIT CHECKING, GENERAL
----------------------
I have found that the only really reliable way of seeing how your output will look in a certain format is to create that output. There is no fully reliable shortcut. For example, in the Individual Narrative in TMG 5.15, I often find the punctuation when output to the screen is not as it will appear in, say, a Journal report. The use of different options between two reports may also significantly affect how the output appears, and the reasons for the differences are not always obvious.

My personal opinion is that one should *not* develop a fixation with only one kind of report for edit checking. The format and options of that report, and the results it produces, can become so familiar over time that you don't even see half of what it does. That can mask structural deficiencies in your data. By deficiencies I do not mean adherence to somebody *else's* ideas of data purity, but rather that your data when output says what *YOU* want it to say. It would serve you well to generate several different reports, using the default options, to review recent data entry. Check for "unexpected results".

EDIT CHECKING USING SECOND SITE
-------------------------------
It has been remarked since the very beginning of beta testing that Second Site is a remarkably good "reality check" for TMG data entry. Neither John Cardinal nor the users have come up with a satisfactory explanation. (If you know me, you will be sure that I have an opinion....) Data checking was not a motive for the creation of the program, and John C. confesses to being bemused by the effect. Nevertheless, new *and* experienced users remark, over and over, how Second Site not only helps identify data problems, but almost seems to suggest the changes needed.

If you anticipate using TMG to create output in HTML that makes up a structured whole, whether designed for Web publishing or for creating CDs, you owe it to yourself to buy Second Site. It is almost as underpriced as the TMG upgrade itself. If you do not anticipate web-site-style output, you might want to buy Second Site just for edit checking. For turning a TMG report directly into a Web "page" only, TMG's own HTML output file format seems to do an adequate job, at least, as far as I can tell.

I don't have any financial interest in Second Site. However, I am the list admin for SECONDSITE-L, one of the original beta testers, and one of the two most biased people around when it comes to genealogical Web site creation software. [VERY big grin]

Darrell


Darrell A. Martin
a native Vermonter currently in exile in Illinois
http://www.darrell-martin.net/genealogy/


This thread: