TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2006-02 > 1138847029


From: "Teresa Elliott" <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] End of Sentence Codes - location of "No Caps" code
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 20:28:22 -0600
In-Reply-To: <20060201175009.59942.qmail@web81810.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Donald,
I am sorry, but could you explain what you mean by discrete events and
"enter information". None of this makes sense to me. I am trying to follow
the train of thought, but I don't understand your terms.

Teresa Ghee Elliott-IBSSG


-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Joseph Schulteis [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 11:50 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [TMG] End of Sentence Codes - location of "No Caps" code

From a different perspective.

When researchers enter discrete events into TMG, and the "enter
information" requires the information from two discrete events to be output
contiguous, the responsibility for this, in all cases, rests with the
researcher, not the program. The important point here is the word discrete
and the events "information outputting."

If the researcher does not wish for the two events to be output managed
discretely, then the researcher needs to address this. It certainly is not
that difficult to do as the researcher needs but record the outputted
information under one discrete event.

What we seem to lose sight of is discrete events when viewed as part of a
person's detail view, and this same "information" when actually output, are
not necessarily compatible. Managing information for one, say the detail
view, is not the same as managing the information for the other, say the
report view.

We can plan and we can discuss this all we want but we will always come
back to the same "problem", they are not the same and cannot be managed the
same as long as the architecture of the program remains as it is.

If we want them to function the same, we need to address the program's
architecture, not sentence construction.

From a program perspective, the researcher has this control today; enter
the information so it can be "predictably" managed by the program as the
researcher expects; not as in "read my mind."

Donald


Terry Reigel <> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:49:59 -0500, William M Roberts wrote:
> Terry
>
> Has anyone thought about hoe the output will be ordered?
> There is no guarantee that TMG will output tags with the
> same sort date in any order, so if you expect the tags to
> be output as 1 and then 2 and TMG decides to output them
> as 2 and then 1, what will be the result of all of this
> exercise.

It hadn't occurred to me that there was any issue. I assume there will
be no change in tag sorting, which I believe currently is:

1. Tags sort in sort date order.

2. Tags with the same sort date sort in an unpredictable fashion.

3. Undated tags sort to top or bottom of the tag box according to a
user setting, and at the top of reports.

So the user would have the same responsibility to insure desired sort
order, and the same tools to achieve it, as today.

Terry


==== TMG Mailing List ====
Send all messages and replies to .





"The Omnibus Portal"
www.schulteis.com/omnibus/


==== TMG Mailing List ====
TMG v6.07 has been released. Check the Wholly Genes web site
<http://www.whollygenes.com>; for more information.


This thread: