Multiple Memo Attempted Usage

[Grimesgang 0]

OK, here's another attempt by me to bend this TMG into something it doesn't do.

 

I have a source that refers to an online archive of Mennonite obituaries that were transcribed from the original newspapers in the 1800s. It is under the general structure of an obituary/newpaper item. Under the Supplemental (Memo) tab, I entered "a newspaper for the various Mennonite communities throughout several states".

 

Now is the tough part. I use a custom "Obituary" tag mentioned in another thread here. I use the sentence structure:

 

[:CR:][:CR:][PG] <had|and [PO] had> an obituary< that appeared [D]>< in [L]><, [sOURCE MEMO]>: [TAG MEMO]

 

My problem is that, while the tag memo information shows up (which is the entire transcribed obituary), I can find no way to point the sentence structure at the source to print the source memo information. I don't really want to write the source supplementary description every time I put in a tag. Is there a way to access both memos in a sentence?

[Terry Reigel 0]

There is no such sentence variable as [sOURCE MEMO], nor [TAG MEMO].

In sentences, you can refer to the main tag Memo with the variable [M], and to it's parts with the [M1], [M2], etc. variables.

 

I'd suspect that one reason you can't refer to the "Source Memo" is that a tag can have any number of sources, each of which might have a Memo.

 

Why do you put the text of the obit in the source? If you are using it only for the person's obituary tag, why not put it there? Even if you cite the Obit source for other tags, would you want the whole text with them too?

[Grimesgang 0]

There is no such sentence variable as [sOURCE MEMO], nor [TAG MEMO].

In sentences, you can refer to the main tag Memo with the variable [M], and to it's parts with the [M1], [M2], etc. variables.

 

I'd suspect that one reason you can't refer to the "Source Memo" is that a tag can have any number of sources, each of which might have a Memo.

 

Why do you put the text of the obit in the source? If you are using it only for the person's obituary tag, why not put it there? Even if you cite the Obit source for other tags, would you want the whole text with them too?

 

I know those weren't valid variables. I put them there (and put them in bold) as descriptors to show what I wanted to do.

 

As for obituary text in the source rather than in the tag, I was trying to prevent having thousands of obituary "sources", many of which are from the same newspaper, just from different publication dates over several decades. I wanted to have ONE source (the newspaper Herald of Truth), then I would put the actual volume and issue in the citation detail [CD], which would hopefully come out on the footnotes and bibliography (I haven't confirmed that yet; that's a different issue), and I would have the text of the obituary in the Obituary tag, which connects to the person. Trying to use the Supplemental Source memo to further describe the newspaper in the sentences is a nicety that will make the narrative flow, rather than being choppy, as most of my sentences are so far.

 

Part of this goes back to my old issues with sources (and the ongoing debate). I see no reason to have multiple sources from one thing ( particularly a newspaper or other repetitive published medium) rather than having it listed as a source once, then designating the individual issue/published work within a citation, which will then show separately in the footnotes and bibliography.

[Michael Hannah 0]

Well, I am one that likes to find ways to customize TMG, but I think you are fighting a losing battle with the inherent design of TMG. First, the [CD] and [CM] variables cannot be included in a bibliography template, only in the full or short footnote templates. The TMG design seems to favor multiple entries in the Master Source List. TMG is designed to collapse the bibliographic output from multiple sources in the Master Source List to a single bibliography entry if the resultant template for each of such multiple source would produce identical text. You can customize the TMG templates and the resulting footnote and bibligraphy ouput quite a bit, but this is usually at the expense of the Master Source List (which only you can see) being larger than you would prefer. I think you have to pick one or the other: limiting the number of entries in the internal TMG Master Source List, or limiting/structuring the source output. Personally, I care more about how the output looks, and am quite willing to live with whatever the internal lists need to be to accomplish that.

[Terry Reigel 0]

As for obituary text in the source rather than in the tag, I was trying to prevent having thousands of obituary "sources", many of which are from the same newspaper, just from different publication dates over several decades.

I'm now totally confused. If you put the text of the obituary in the source, aren't you then limited to using the source to just that one obituary, rather than using it for all obituaries published in that newspaper? What am I missing?

 

First, the [CD] and [CM] variables cannot be included in a bibliography template, only in the full or short footnote templates.

Well, yes... What alternative would you suggest? Since there can be an unlimited number of citations to each source, each potentially with a different CD and CM, what should the Bibliography show?

The TMG design seems to favor multiple entries in the Master Source List.

True, that is the design of the standard source templates, and the Bibliography consoldiation feature you describe facility supports that. But many users, including myself, use much more generic source definitions. With the use of split CDs you can create nearly any format of footnotes and endnotes you might want dispite the fact that some of the details are in the CD rather than in the source definition. But, you are right, you cannot include in the bibliography details that do not appear in the source definition.

[Grimesgang 0]

I'm now totally confused. If you put the text of the obituary in the source, aren't you then limited to using the source to just that one obituary, rather than using it for all obituaries published in that newspaper? What am I missing?

Well, yes... What alternative would you suggest? Since there can be an unlimited number of citations to each source, each potentially with a different CD and CM, what should the Bibliography show?

 

True, that is the design of the standard source templates, and the Bibliography consoldiation feature you describe facility supports that. But many users, including myself, use much more generic source definitions. With the use of split CDs you can create nearly any format of footnotes and endnotes you might want dispite the fact that some of the details are in the CD rather than in the source definition. But, you are right, you cannot include in the bibliography details that do not appear in the source definition.

 

Yes, I can see why you'd be confused. I probably stated it badly, but I said that I am putting the text of the obituary in the tag memo area, not in the source. I wanted merely to use the source memo (Supplemental tab) as a descriptor of the newspaper, especially since it is not a standard city newspaper, but one put out by a group.

 

What I am quickly discovering as I finally jump into using TMG (instead of just dabbling) is that what intimidated me before as being too flexible to pick a structure to follow and do it "right", is now seeming too inflexible to supply what I am looking for in creating a structure to do it logically. I must just have too much computer programmer in me to understand (or maybe accept) limitations of variables.

[Terry Reigel 0]

Yes, I can see why you'd be confused. I probably stated it badly, but I said that I am putting the text of the obituary in the tag memo area, not in the source. I wanted merely to use the source memo (Supplemental tab) as a descriptor of the newspaper, especially since it is not a standard city newspaper, but one put out by a group.

Thanks, that now makes sense. And, you want the descriptor in the tag rather than in the source note, right? I see the issue. I'm afraid there is no way other than repeating it in each tag.

 

Although, you could make only one tag, probably in the History group, for all obits in the same paper. Enter each person as a Witness, with the obit text in the Witness Memo, and put the descritor in the main tag Memo. Since you would only have one source citation you couldn't but the date and page in the CD, but you could put it in the WM.

 

I must just have too much computer programmer in me to understand (or maybe accept) limitations of variables.

OK, as a programmer, how would you create a simple interface to specify which source the "Source Memo" should be taken from? Remember that a tag can have any number of citations, including multiple citations to the same source, and they can be sorted and excluded by the user at any time.

[Grimesgang 0]

Thanks, that now makes sense. And, you want the descriptor in the tag rather than in the source note, right? I see the issue. I'm afraid there is no way other than repeating it in each tag.

 

Actually, that may open my eyes some. I have been looking at the sentence structure as being separate from the tag, where it would be able to use variables from sources as well as citations. Instead, it is really part of the tag.

 

 

Although, you could make only one tag, probably in the History group, for all obits in the same paper. Enter each person as a Witness, with the obit text in the Witness Memo, and put the descritor in the main tag Memo. Since you would only have one source citation you couldn't but the date and page in the CD, but you could put it in the WM.

 

There you go, throwing more flexibility into the mix again!

 

Your suggestion does raise an interesting possibility, though. I'll have to mull that one over. Why should it be in the History group, though? My Obituary tag now is in the Burial group; have I created a problem for myself doing that?

 

OK, as a programmer, how would you create a simple interface to specify which source the "Source Memo" should be taken from? Remember that a tag can have any number of citations, including multiple citations to the same source, and they can be sorted and excluded by the user at any time.

 

I see the relationship from a tag to its citations as a one-to-many relationship, and the citation to its source as a one-to-one relationship. Therefore:

 

[Tag1]-->[Cit1]-->[src1] would be an interconnected group which could essentially be treated as a "macro-variable", with any part (tag/cit/src) being able to use any variable from any of those parts. This temporary interconnectedness should not (in my concept) cause any conflict with any other interconnected group, since the variables of each part would sit on their own little "cit island" or "src island", waiting to be picked up and connected together in a different combination. That way, you could also have

 

[Tag1]-->[Cit2]-->[src2] being a second combination, just as easily as you could have

 

[Tag1]-->[Cit3]-->[src1], which would be a second citation pointing at the first source, since each group would merely take a copy of the information for each citation or source.

 

All that aside, though, I think I need to refresh my knowledge of the contents of Bibliographies. Rather than have a single biblio entry for a newspaper where I get information from multiple volumes, I'm thinking I need an entry for each volume. True? Since I don't have an APA citation guide in front of me, or even a copy of Lackey or Mills, I'll need to dig that up.

[Terry Reigel 0]

Your suggestion does raise an interesting possibility, though. I'll have to mull that one over. Why should it be in the History group, though?

The reason I suggested the History group is those tags don't take a Principal - so everyone is entered as a Witness. That seemed a bit neater, but it's not essential.

I see the relationship from a tag to its citations as a one-to-many relationship, and the citation to its source as a one-to-one relationship. Therefore:

 

[Tag1]-->[Cit1]-->[src1] would be an interconnected group which could essentially be treated as a "macro-variable", ...

But what is "Cit1?" - The first citaion listed in the tag? What happens if you re-sort the citations? Do you have to change the sentence? Or if exclude that citation? Does the sentence output get excluded as well?

 

Since I don't get to decide anyway, I'm not sure convincing me actually matters.

 

All that aside, though, I think I need to refresh my knowledge of the contents of Bibliographies. Rather than have a single biblio entry for a newspaper where I get information from multiple volumes, I'm thinking I need an entry for each volume. True? Since I don't have an APA citation guide in front of me, or even a copy of Lackey or Mills, I'll need to dig that up.

I think that's a matter of personal preference.

 

I, for example, never even use conventional bibilographies. I think if you are going to give source information you should give it in detail - tell which data came from which source, which is what the footnotes/endnotes do. Others will of course differ.

 

On the other hand, for my public webpages, I prefer a simplified set of citations, so I use the bibliogaphy format for the source notes there (Second Site offers that option). So I edit the bibliography templates with that in mind.