GENBOX-L ArchivesArchiver > GENBOX > 2004-02 > 1077115770
From: Don Zochert <>
Subject: Re: [GENBOX] Enough Author Types?
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 08:49:40 -0600
Paul J. Harris wrote:
I seem to be seeing a severe limitation in dealing with
Authors of correspondence. In Mills...the full name of
the Author is given in the Primary AND Secondary
citations...I can find no way, short of hard coding the
name, to get full name in Primary AND Secondary citations,
AND get the reversal in the bibliography. It appears to me
that what we...need to get the proper output is an additional
Author Type...perhaps called 'Correspondent,' which would
be interpreted by Genbox to render the full name for
Primary AND Secondary citations, the reverse the name
for the bibliography....Otherwise, we need codes for
[DOC AUTHOR FIRSTNAME] [DOC AUTHOR LASTNAME]
I like the idea of additional codes. They give the user more flexibility
in constructing citations.
Automatic citations are ok as far as they go, which sometimes is not far
enough. If you match the forms in the 1997 edition of Mills's
"Evidence!," what do you do when her new edition is published? What do
you do if you follow a different style guide? Default automatic
citations are a good start and are desirable. But in my view, the more
power in the hands of the user, the better.
It's also worth noting that Mills calls her letter citation "Letter
(Annotated Citation)." She adds annotations you wouldn't necessarily
find elsewhere, such as a correspondent's maiden name and a
correspondent's formal street address. I'm not sure what purpose that
serves--more information for the reader? If so, why not include the same
sort of annotations for the recipient? I don't follow the logic,
although, in my own use, I sort of follow Mills.
A primary citation to correspondence in my database comes out like this:
Letter from Ann Schmidt (6054 Kenwood Ave., Apt. 44,
Chicago, Illinois) to Kate Maloney, 23 January 1924, in
Ann McFarland Schmidt Correspondence File, Collection
The secondary reference is:
Schmidt to Maloney, 23 January 1924.
This *does* require a certain amount of hard-coding: You need to use
separate codes for the full name and the surname of the recipient (i.e.,
you have to enter the surname twice).
I probably should just go ahead and eliminate the recipient's address in
the primary citation template, since it makes no sense to me to include
it. If the location of these two correspondents is important in some
way, that information can easily be added to the citation as an
annotation or comment. (What kind of an address is it, any way? Is it
the domicile of the sender? Is it the postal address from which the
letter was mailed? Or is it a return address? What if Ann Schmidt sent
all her correspondence from Box 2336, Chicago, Ill.?)
In terms of a second reference, "Schmidt to Maloney" makes just as
much sense to me as "Ann Schmidt to Kate Maloney." Plus, it's shorter.
But if you want to reproduce the Mills style exactly, my vote would be
for additional codes.
|Re: [GENBOX] Enough Author Types? by Don Zochert <>|