Locality vs location

[Michael Talibard]

I have been puzzling over this for a while now, since noticing that default fields for certain source types in Reunion sometimes include both - which implies they are not seen as synonyms. I couldn't find it explained in the manual, so I tried using my intelligence. This is to check whether I've got it right.

Is it that 'location' is meant to be reserved for a) where a paper document is kept, such as in your filing cabinet or in the local archive building; and for b) the equivalent of that within your computer's filing system - while 'locality' is a quasi-geographical term, denoting the area referred to in the document, such as the parish of St Martin?

[dfilpus]

In Census sources, there are two fields: Locality and Location of Source. This is clear which is which and matches your conclusion.

[S McCormick]

Location of source could also be taken to mean "Allen County Library," "Library of Congress," and similar locations (which would be different outside of the US, but would be there in some form.)

I suspect that they can be used in any way that makes sense to the particular user of Reunion. I also suggest that the goal is to produce sources which produce consistent source citations; that is, sources which are consistent in style and which adhere to some type of citation standard — Shown Mills or other acceptable standard.

I have been playing around with a citation for material I have received by email. I chose existing fields which I would consistently understand and added other fields which would serve the same purpose. Then I arranged the fields so that the citation would appear in a report to read as much like the Show Mills example as I could manage.

Sue

[rclrocco]

Sue,

I'd be interested to see an example of the fields you use for describing emails as a source.

I currently use two: Title and date. Title might read, "Email to me from Joe Bloggs" , or Copy of an email from Bert Smith to Sue Bloggs; and date is the date of the email. I suppose I could add subject but I thought I would keep things simple.

Am I missing something or keeping things too simple?

[Sara]

Sue,

I'd be interested to see an example of the fields you use for describing emails as a source.

I currently use two: Title and date. Title might read, "Email to me from Joe Bloggs" , or Copy of an email from Bert Smith to Sue Bloggs; and date is the date of the email. I suppose I could add subject but I thought I would keep things simple.

Am I missing something or keeping things too simple?

Rupert, I'm not Sue but thought I would jump in here with how I handle e-mails. My result is very close to the Elizabeth Shown Mills example in Evidence! I have the following fields: Author, Title, E-mail, Date. The result might appear as:

661. Joe Jones, "Jones Family Info", e-mail from <joejones@nowhere.com> to Sara Bradley Mason, 5 May 2007.

I feel it's important to include the recipient because sometimes an e-mail is sent to someone else or to a group of people or a mailing list. Or possibly the e-mail was originally sent to someone else and has been forwarded to you. In that case I would include that information in the E-mail field (e-mail from <marysmith@wherever.com> to Joe Jones, forwarded to SBM). As do others, I keep binders with copies of source material in numerical order so I have the original e-mail printed and filed by number.

Hope this helps.

[ByronSpoon]

Rupert, I'm not Sue but thought I would jump in here with how I handle e-mails. My result is very close to the Elizabeth Shown Mills example in Evidence! I have the following fields: Author, Title, E-mail, Date. The result might appear as:

661. Joe Jones, "Jones Family Info", e-mail from <joejones@nowhere.com> to Sara Bradley Mason, 5 May 2007.

I feel it's important to include the recipient because sometimes an e-mail is sent to someone else or to a group of people or a mailing list. Or possibly the e-mail was originally sent to someone else and has been forwarded to you. In that case I would include that information in the E-mail field (e-mail from <marysmith@wherever.com> to Joe Jones, forwarded to SBM). As do others, I keep binders with copies of source material in numerical order so I have the original e-mail printed and filed by number.

Hope this helps.Here is a related ReunionTalk discussion regarding whether to include/exclude email addresses in sources (see last couple of posts)
--> http://www.reuniontalk.com/showthread.php?t=5199

[Sara]

Here is a related ReunionTalk discussion regarding whether to include/exclude email addresses in sources (see last couple of posts)
--> http://www.reuniontalk.com/showthread.php?t=5199

Well, actually my point was that the recipient's name should be included not whether or not to include the e-mail address of the sender. ESM has apparently changed her mind between Evidence! and Evidence Explained regarding addresses. In the former she even states that the postal address should be obtained and included since they change less frequently than e-mail addresses (p. 80).