I have evaluated Near and Far (mircrostar) for WORD 6 and I am
receiving the beta version for word7 soon. The word 6 version works
very well. I successfully loaded the EAD.DTD and created a finding
aid from it, although I didn't do a container list yet. The great
thing about this is that you create your document right in word--
with a menu bar giving you drop down choices for your next allowable
entry. Anyone else experimented with this? It is available for a FREE
30 day trial period from Chris Lamont at Microstar. I encourage others
to check this out!
> With respect to word, MicroStar resells Word SGML enabled, that is, with
> real time parsing. We have not had chance to evaluate it, but encourage
> others to do so.-Daniel
>
> On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Nick Finke wrote:
>
> > Just a few observations.
> >
> > 1. As others have pointed out, either Word or WordPerfect can use regular
> > wordprocessing styles that can be converted later to SGML. The key here is
> > that each type of item that you will want to mark up later should be put in
> > a specific style that will later allow a conversion program to recognize it
> > and apply SGML elements. For this purpose, either program will do.
> >
> > 2. It is important to realize that what this use of wordprocessing styles
> > means is that a fairly simple template of styles can be created, together
> > with a sheet of directions for their use, and this template can be supplied
> > to someone who wishes to create a finding aid. The person who creates the
> > finding aid does not have to have more than a general knowledge of SGML.
> > If the text uses styles in a consistent manner, it can be converted later
> > to SGML in a fairly programmatic manner. I am of the opinion that if
> > learning SGML becomes mandatory for creators of finding aids, it will only
> > reduce the number of finding aids created.
> >
> > 3. This use of styles does not have much directly to do with the
> > WordPerfect (Reveal Codes) command. Both Word and WordPerfect can show you
> > the style associated with a particular piece of text. For Word users, this
> > information will show up in the Style window (which, if your use of this
> > powerful program is like mine, will almost always display "Normal").
> >
> > 4. With regard to the Word vs WordPerfect problem, I am told that
> > WordPerfect 7 (only available to date on Windows 95) supports tagging in
> > SGML as a standard out-of-the-box feature. I have not gotten a look at
> > this yet, but it might provide a good reason for using WordPerfect for
> > your documents now.
> >
> > 5. What I have heard about the corresponding add-in for Word has not been
> > very promising. As a Word user, I find this fact somewhat disappointing.
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> >
> > Nick Finke
> >
> > At 9:06 AM -0800 11/26/96, Sue Hodson wrote:
> > >We have a question regarding the best word processing software to use when
> > >creating finding aids that will be encoded at a later time. We tend to
> > >prefer Wordperfect, for its capacity to reveal codes, but our institution
> > >has given everyone Windows 95 and Microsoft Word, and our computer office
> > >won't support Wordperfect any longer.
> > >
> > >Does anyone have any words of wisdom on this matter? Is it better to use
> > >Wordperfect rather than Word? Does it matter? Is Wordperfect easier to
> > >mark up later?
> > >
> > >I appreciate any advice. Please reply directly to me rather than to the li
> > >
> > >Sue Hodson
> > >The Huntington Library
> > >1151 Oxford Road
> > >San Marino, CA 91108
> > >[log in to unmask]
> >
> >
> >
> > **********************************************
> > Nicholas D. Finke Phone: (513) 556-0103
> > Center for Electronic Text in the Law Fax: (513) 556-6265
> > University of Cincinnati College of Law
> > P.O. Box 210142 Email:
> > Cincinnati, OH 45221-0142 [log in to unmask]
> > **********************************************
> >
|