TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2006-07 > 1151872568


From: David Ball <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] source output form
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 13:36:08 -0700
In-Reply-To: <LPBBJNIOBJEJOGJFMDGJMENOLMAB.ddburghart@cox.net>


DeAnna and Lee,

You have each stated well your approaches to documentation, but it is
similar to the lumper/splitter operating mode in TMG, and I suspect we are
each mostly settled into a spot on a wide spectrum of options. It all
depends, I suppose, upon what we are doing, whether it is for ourselves (and
extended family) or for some sort of "publication" (books, website or
something "permanent" hopefully someday).

Point made by both is that we need to think through and be consistent in how
we document sources. I personally don't think that every little detail
suggested by Elizabeth Shown Mills, either in "Evidence" or in her on-line
style sheet, is useful from the point of view of someone needing to find a
quoted source, but I do use both as my starting place every time AND I only
omit a bit or change the sentences on the output after careful thought. I
also use "A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations" by
Kate L. Turabian, The University of Chicago Press, Fourth Edition, 1973 to
get an academic view of documentation, often simpler than forms found in
"Evidence". Then I document my decision in my Design Criteria document, so
I don't have to reinvent my format and content for any specific type of
source document.

So, please continue to question the "why" for these kinds of topics on this
list. Within the context of how to better use TMG to record our research,
it is important that we all occasionally step outside of the "heat of
battle" with content and take an informed look at form and format. Again,
thanks for both taking the time to present views on a topic that is often
challenging and difficult to nail down.

Dave Ball
Compiler of The New England Ball Project


This thread: