TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2005-10 > 1128388227


From: "Darrell A. Martin" <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] Wishlist for Exhibit Log
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 01:10:27 +0000
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20051003223311.027eced8@pop.sprynet.com><20051003234543.50427.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20051003234543.50427.qmail@web81602.mail.yahoo.com>


At 11:45 PM 10/3/2005, Jennifer Reusser wrote:
>
>Darrell,
>
>I recommended keeping the four fields (Topic, Reference (which I forgot to list earlier), Caption and Description) with the event/exhibit link because of the ways in which people currently use them.
>Per Astrid's use of the current fields:
>1. Topic = "type of Event - name of P1" (no quotes) (= different for each 'link') -
>if it's a person exhibit it would be something like: Person - Doe, John
>If it's an event exhibit: Marriage - Doe, John
>
>2. Reference = Person ID# of P1 (if applicable = also different for each 'link')
>3. Caption = English or German (= different for each Event 'link')
>4. Description if needed (also English or German = different for each Event 'link')
[snip]

Hi, Jennifer (and Astrid):

Part of my desire for what I call a "Master Image List" comes from the current difficulties we have with exhibits that have no master list for the subject documents/files/images/???. Because there is no way in TMG to separate information about the *image* from information about its *use* in connection with a person or Tag, we get ... creative. I would like to get *LESS* creative with my data entry so I would have time to get *more* creative with my research and analysis.

I understand why Astrid is doing what she does, in the current program. But to "institutionalize" what is essentially a workaround would make for a very, very, bad design for a "Master Image List", I think. In fact, it concedes what I see as the heart of the matter before even starting. That heart is to separate data about the Image *itself* quite clearly from data about the Image's *use*.

-- 1. The "topic" of an Image is the subject matter, the content, of the *Image*, not its relationship to a person or Tag. I would argue that it would be very difficult to justify calling the topic of a wedding portrait just "Marriage - John Smith" with his blushing bride standing there right next to him! Instead, the topic should be something *like*, "Wedding portrait of John Doe and Donna Jones". The important thing is the topic *of the Image* doesn't change whether you link the image to person=John, person=Donna, or Tag=Marriage.

If you are talking about the topic of the *exhibit* (the link between the Image and a person or Tag), then I would say you are arguing for what I would call a "Master Exhibit List". I have no interest in that approach except to think it would cause major headaches down the road, for all concerned.

-- 2. When I spoke of a reference field, I was speaking of a way the user could establish her or his own "filing", sorting, or management system. As would be true of all fields in the MIL record, the reference field would *not* change when the Image was linked as an exhibit to a Tag or a person.

-- 3. Chant with me - "Captions should be for output in a context, they are not part of the Image itself." [grin]

-- 4. "Description" can mean anything, and so belongs anywhere - or nowhere...

Darrell


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

This thread: