TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Mapping, take II From:Geoff Hart <Geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA> Date:Tue, 29 Jun 1999 08:58:03 -0400
Ben Kovitz followed up on my attempted definition of
<<Just a little nitpick here>>
Speaking as an editor--and you can quote me--nits are worth
picking, because if you leave them alone, they grow up into
<<a geographical map doesn't represent the relationship
between the two-dimensional image and the three-
dimensional world, it *is* the two-dimensional image.>>
The map is, as you say, the two-dimensional representation of
the relationship, and the relationship is the means you use to
get from the images on paper to figuring out how to actually
reach your destination.
<<And a super-nitpick: a mapping isn't the representation of
the relationship, it *is* the relationship.>>
What he said!
<<If anyone knows any tips on documenting that kind of
old-data-to-new-data mapping, please post! I did that last
month and was less than happy with what I came up with.>>
Best I can suggest is something like a table of
correspondences (e.g., column A labeled "what I said" and
column B labeled "what Geoff really meant to say, as
expressed more clearly by Ben"). Can you provide specific
examples? Strikes me as interesting fodder for techwr-l!