GENBOX-L Archives

Archiver > GENBOX > 2004-09 > 1094353347

From: Kathy Lenerz <>
Subject: Re: [GENBOX] Research targets
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 23:04:25 -0400
References: <000001c492ee$dc73b9e0$>
In-Reply-To: <000001c492ee$dc73b9e0$>

Murray Lynn wrote:
> There seem to be two (equally useful) ways of using Projects / Targets:
> One is a top down approach when starting something 'major' by setting up
> a Project and sub-projects and then targets and searches.
> The second way is a bottom up approach, ie adding a research target when
> you spot a gap or get an inspiration from individual screen etc.

Excellent analysis, Murray. So far I have done only the latter, as I've
been doing a lot of data entry lately and have been adding tasks to cover
the gaps I discover in doing this. I do have a major project I planned
recently, complete with multiple related famlies, multiple locations and
repositories, sequencing, and priorities. I planned it on paper (well,
actually in the word processor) because I couldn't see how it would
integrate with my other research targets or see how to get the output I
wanted if I set it up as a project. It may be easier now with the ability
to create Project reports that show research target descriptions.

I think one of the issues has to do with how the data are sliced and diced.
For me, a project is often (not always, as with my ILL project) planned
around an individual or family, but for practical reasons, I want the data
output by location and repository, irrespective of the individual/family

In other words, when I plan, I think: what do I need to do for this
individual/family? When I research, I think: what do I have to do at this
repository? I *think* (without having tried it) the hierarchical
organization of Projects works well for the former, but the Research Target
report doesn't work as well as it needs for the latter.

I agree that it would be nice to add a research target to a project from
the Research Target window.


This thread: