Mapping, take II

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!

--Geoff Hart @8^{)} Pointe-Claire, Quebec
geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca

"Though the editor is the author's ally, she should never forget that
she is also the reader's first line of defense."--Shoshanna Green

From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=

Previous by Author: Appendix within a chapter?
Next by Author: Hyperlinks = maps = relationships?
Previous by Thread: Appendix within a chapter?
Next by Thread: Re: Mapping, take II

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads