Mills Source Categories

[Jeff F 0]

It seems really odd to me that Mills would have 12 separate source categories for books (for example) but not have something vaguely applicable to funeral home memorial cards or other such items. I've read the other posts and Mills comments on how to use the Newspaper source category for these types of sources (customized of course) but that seems to be a marginal solution at best.

On the one hand she seems to be very specific about certain source categories but then on the other she seems to want to shoe-horn items into source categories that are less than optimal. The logic seems a bit "irregular" (but only from my perspective!)

This isn't a gripe or complaint just a friendly observation.

Jeff

[Jim Byram 0]

Mills makes very clear in her book that her source types are examples of many different types of source data that the reader might encounter and they are provided so that the reader can create other source types to deal with variants of the examples or other source types as necessary. One of the points of Mills' book is to educate the reader about source citation. It was never her intention to provide an all-inclusive list of source types.

 

She has added additional source types for online historical sources with her QuickSheet (which has recently been revised). And her forthcoming book, Evidence Expanded: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace, is said to greatly expand the scope of Evidence.

 

And keep in mind that the TMG source templates patterned after the examples in Mills' book are the interpretation of Wholly Genes within the context of how TMG works and are not claimed to be an exact representation of the Mills source type examples nor of Ms. Mills design intentions.

[Jeff F 0]

Yep, I get all of that.

 

I think the issue for me comes in the two different standards (Mills vs. Lackey). Mills being very inclusive while Lackey is more generic in scope. There's no middle ground for source categories, you either get very specific or very generic. For me Lackey is just too generic, I have trouble getting comfortable with it. Mills specificity fits my personality (I tend to be a bit anal where data is concerned)

I'm not sure how many "basic" sources one could come up with when devising a system for sources. I do know that 12 specific types of books is a bit over the top for most people, but to each their own. You have 12 very specific book sources documented in great detail but theres nothing remotely familiar for the inclusion of memorial cards or similar data. In my limited view of the genealogy world, that appears to be an oversight on Mills part. But again, thats just my perspective.

 

For the hobbiest in genealogy, the source, citation, repository and citation detail process is cumbersome enough (in a learning curve sort of way) without the necessity of having to create their own custom source categories.

 

No worries either way. I can create a custom source category for my specific needs.

Thanks for your input Jim!

 

Jeff

[ggilbert1 0]

Elizabeth Shown Mills new book Evidence Explained will exceed 800 pages.

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/apg/2007-01/1169154216

[Jeff F 0]

Wow!

I'll have to set aside some quality reading time when the new book becomes available.

 

 

 

 

Elizabeth Shown Mills new book Evidence Explained will exceed 800 pages.

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/apg/2007-01/1169154216

[Excalibur 0]

Elizabeth Shown Mills new book Evidence Explained will exceed 800 pages.

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/apg/2007-01/1169154216

I know it takes time for these things, but I sure wish the book would hurry up and get released. I assume (Ack...there's that word) TMG will incorporate the new source categories while retaining the form, fit, and function of the older ones.

[Terry Reigel 0]

I assume (Ack...there's that word) TMG will incorporate the new source categories while retaining the form, fit, and function of the older ones.

You want TMG to now have thousands of source types???

 

Many users think the 100+ we now have are way too many.

[ggilbert1 0]

You want TMG to now have thousands of source types???

Installation DVD#2

[Jeff F 0]

Even with thousands to choose from guys like me will be saying "Hey, wheres MY source type?"

 

 

 

Installation DVD#2

[Jeff F 0]

As an endnote, I went with a suggestion from Lee Hoffman and used a Manuscript (not filmed) tag. That seems to work fine for the Funeral Memorial Cards.

Thanks !

 

 

It seems really odd to me that Mills would have 12 separate source categories for books (for example) but not have something vaguely applicable to funeral home memorial cards or other such items. I've read the other posts and Mills comments on how to use the Newspaper source category for these types of sources (customized of course) but that seems to be a marginal solution at best.

On the one hand she seems to be very specific about certain source categories but then on the other she seems to want to shoe-horn items into source categories that are less than optimal. The logic seems a bit "irregular" (but only from my perspective!)

This isn't a gripe or complaint just a friendly observation.

Jeff

[Excalibur 0]

You want TMG to now have thousands of source types???

 

Many users think the 100+ we now have are way too many.

No, I don't want thousands of source types. On the other hand, I do believe there will be some expansion of source types based on Elizabeth Shown Mills new book -- maybe not.

 

Users think a lot of different things about a lot of different things about TMG. I don't know that many users think 100+ source types is too many. I do think that some users think 100+ source types is too many, some users think 100+ source types is not sufficient, and some users think 100+ source types is just right. For me, I think the future of source types will have some form of expansion. Looking into my crystal ball, I do not foresee source types decreasing or remaining stagnant.

[Terry Reigel 0]

For me, I think the future of source types will have some form of expansion. Looking into my crystal ball, I do not foresee source types decreasing or remaining stagnant.

I can't speak for what WG might or might not do, but I have examined the existing source types carefully to see which are really useful. I found that many are similar, and can be combined by simply making the titles more general. Others, like the many book examples, can be made much more useful by creating a single combined version (see my "All-purpose" book source type as an example).

 

What I found if you do that, and omit obscure ones that I've never found a need for, less than a third as many as presently are supplied are needed. The result would not be a set that has one source type that corresponds to each example in Evidence! as there is now, but would still cover all the cases one discussed there. With the many more examples in the new book, I would think that one source type for each example is simply not useful.

 

Even if you added in a few new source types for cases not presently addresseed, you would need fewer, not more, total source types in my view.

[Excalibur 0]

I can't speak for what WG might or might not do, but I have examined the existing source types carefully to see which are really useful. I found that many are similar, and can be combined by simply making the titles more general. Others, like the many book examples, can be made much more useful by creating a single combined version (see my "All-purpose" book source type as an example).

 

What I found if you do that, and omit obscure ones that I've never found a need for, less than a third as many as presently are supplied are needed. The result would not be a set that has one source type that corresponds to each example in Evidence! as there is now, but would still cover all the cases one discussed there. With the many more examples in the new book, I would think that one source type for each example is simply not useful.

 

Even if you added in a few new source types for cases not presently addresseed, you would need fewer, not more, total source types in my view.

You and I obviously have two different trains of thought on this subject.

You want to combine similar source types, I don't.

You want to create a single combined version (which you have done), I don't.

You believe a single combined version is much more useful, I don't.

You want to omit obscure source types that you never found a need for, I don't.

You do not want one source type that corresponds to each example in Evidence, I'm not sure where I stand on this yet, but I do believe that more is better.

You do not think that one source type for each example is useful, I think it could be.

Not knowing how other people use the current source types, I don't believe that I'll ever see TMG reduce what is currently available.

[Virginia Blakelock 0]

You and I obviously have two different trains of thought on this subject.

You want to combine similar source types, I don't.

You want to create a single combined version (which you have done), I don't.

You believe a single combined version is much more useful, I don't.

You want to omit obscure source types that you never found a need for, I don't.

You do not want one source type that corresponds to each example in Evidence, I'm not sure where I stand on this yet, but I do believe that more is better.

You do not think that one source type for each example is useful, I think it could be.

Not knowing how other people use the current source types, I don't believe that I'll ever see TMG reduce what is currently available.

 

I wouldn't expect TMG to reduce what is currently available either, but I'm in Terry's camp - finding the current template selection more than adequate for my purposes. If need be, I can always enter the occasional obscure source type manually.

 

Virginia

[Terry Reigel 0]

You believe a single combined version is much more useful, I don't.

Actually, it's not a matter of belief. In some cases, as combined version simply is more useful. That grows out of the quite different intents of the Mills' examples and the TMG Source Types.

 

Look, for example, at books. There are some 18 different examples in Evidence! They include books with a single author, with multiple authors, edited works, compiled works, multi-volume sets, part of a series, publication date not given, publication place not given, publisher not given, and reprint. The examles section of Ms. Mills' book was designed to illustrate how one deals with each of these various situations. As an illustration, each is indeed more clear when stated individually.

 

But TMG's Source Types are not intended as illustrations, but rather as a tool to facilitate recording of real sources into one's data. In the real world these various conditions appear not individually, but in combination. I find multi-authored books that are reprints. Or edited works that are part of a series. Or complied works without a publisher. Trying to fit these real-world combinations into source types which are constructed to deal with only one condition at a time simply doesn't work. One would have to modify the individual Source Definition to combine elements of several source types.

 

Or, we could create a single source type, or a few, that gracefully deal with the combinations that actually occur. After doing that once, you don't have to re-invent the template for each new source that presents combination of these conditions. That's what I suggested.

You do not want one source type that corresponds to each example in Evidence, I'm not sure where I stand on this yet, but I do believe that more is better.

Clearly, in the case of the book example, I see having separate source types for each example as a disadvantage.

 

More generally, however, I do think it's useful when users can compare the output in an example to the template - it helps when trying to figure out just what information to enter in each source element. I don't see that necessarily requires a unique Source Type for each example. If Source Types with similar templates were combined it would require some means for a user to be able to identify which source type corresponds to each example.

[Michael Hannah 0]

To me one of the best characteristics of TMG is its ability to be customized to work "My Way" . Those who want to "lump" into a few source types can, and those who want to "split" into multiple source types can . What seems to be the issue is what is provided as source types "by default" for a project or dataset, i.e. you at least start out by having this list of source types in your Master Source List (MSL) that are not currently used or needed in your dataset, or are not how you would want them.

 

My wish is to have NO source types by default in a brand new dataset, but to have an easy facility to import pre-defined source types into the MSL from a file. That way the possibly thousands of Mills source types, or the relatively few Lackey source types, could be provided in files, and could allow you to scroll through them to select those that you wished to import into this dataset. You would then even be able to choose some from one type and some from the other! With a matching easy way to export your own customized source types you could maintain your own "master" list for multiple datasets you have, and easily share with other users. It would even provide a way for authors like Mills and Lackey to develop and provide their own "official" TMG examples of their source types.

 

Anyone share my wish?

[Terry Reigel 0]

My wish is to have NO source types by default in a brand new dataset, but to have an easy facility to import pre-defined source types into the MSL from a file. That way the possibly thousands of Mills source types, or the relatively few Lackey source types, could be provided in files, and could allow you to scroll through them to select those that you wished to import into this dataset. You would then even be able to choose some from one type and some from the other! With a matching easy way to export your own customized source types you could maintain your own "master" list for multiple datasets you have, and easily share with other users. It would even provide a way for authors like Mills and Lackey to develop and provide their own "official" TMG examples of their source types.

 

Anyone share my wish?

I do. In fact, I and others have suggested just such an idea before.

 

The export feature would not only allow one to export a favorite set of source types to a new data set, but would allow users to share groups of source types with one another.

 

I would, however, want there to be a default set of source types in a new project for novice users, with more advances users being able to turn them off as you suggest.

[Excalibur 0]

Actually, it's not a matter of belief. In some cases, as combined version simply is more useful.

Actually, it is a matter of belief and as I stated, I do not believe that a combined version is more useful.

Clearly, in the case of the book example, I see having separate source types for each example as a disadvantage.

Clearly, in the case of the book example, I do not see having separate source types for each example as a disadvantage.

 

What is clear is that you and I have "dug in." I am willing to let each have his or her own thoughts on this subject, but I will not speak for them.