Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 26 Sep 1994 09:38:42 +0059 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Patricia, please consider using a format (such as the previously suggested
Chicago Manual of Style) that has some scholarly consensus, rather than a
poll of our peers. That way lies madness (to say nothing of unfindable
references, inconsistancy, and proliferating conventions).
Karen
_________________________________
Karen Motylewski 508-470-1010
Northeast Document Conservation Center 508-475-6021 fax
100 Brickstone Square <[log in to unmask]>
Andover, MA 01810 Use KM in subject field
On Sun, 25 Sep 1994, patricia krkland wrote:
> Here is the distillation responses I have gotten so far. To cite from
> the Internet (say Email for example) it looks like the concensus is:
>
> Author, _Subject_Line_, personal communication via Email from
> Museum-l,m/d/y.
>
> Or to keep it within the current "Curator" format:
>
> Author. (m/d/y). _Subject_Line_. Personal communication vial Email
> from Museum-l.
>
> Any opinions on that? There should be a standardized method as this
> means of communication will only get more widespread. Please post me
> your opinions and thoughts, my Email address is :
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Patricia Kirkland
> University of Nebraska
> Dept of Museum Studies (graduate Student)
>
|
|
|