Re: [WSG] Source Attribution for data tables

[Andrew Krespanis]

On 12/19/05, Terrence Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> how would/do you markup the source attribution for data tables when there
> is already a caption?

How about using the  element? You could code it as:




Summary of Key Indicators




Source: Foo Corp 2005



  ... table content ...



The  is always displayed at the bottom of the table and can
also be used in a 'scrolling content, fixed header+footer' table
setup.

hth,
Andrew.

Re: [WSG] Source Attribution for data tables

[Paula Petrik]

Technically, there are several ways of placing attribution and  
signaling its source for a table, depending on whether or not it is  
taken in toto from the source or adapted. Attribution format also  
depends on the discipline and audience. First, a super-scripted  
number after the title would tell the reader that the table is a  
"quotation"; a superscripted number directly under the table would  
show the source with full citation. Second, another commonly accepted  
method is bracketing a number after the table title and placing the  
bracketed number directly under the table with a full citation. In  
the case of brackets, a short citation form is often acceptable. If  
the table is adapted (revised or excerpted from an extant table), the  
citation should signal its adaptation: Adapted from Table 1, Appendix  
V, "Worker Bee Accounting," 42. Sometimes the following is  
acceptable: Source: Foo Corp, Annual Report, 17. But the source  
should always be placed under the table. The point of attribution is  
threefold: to establish authority, to furnish the source of ideas or  
concept not the author's own, and to provide a "breadcrumb" trail for  
readers. Probably more than you wanted to know.

Paula

Paula Petrik
Professor
Department of History & Art History
Associate Director
Center for History & New Media
George Mason University
http://www.archiva.net





On Dec 18, 2005, at 8:59 PM, heretic wrote:


Hi,


Should the caption be changed to include the attribution?
Table 1 - Summary of Key Indicators (source: Foo Corp 2005)


I'd go with this solution. It's a logical place for attribution and it
doesn't really go anywhere else without losing specific association
with the table contents.

h

--
--- 
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Source Attribution for data tables

[heretic]

Hi,

> Should the caption be changed to include the attribution?
> Table 1 - Summary of Key Indicators (source: Foo Corp 2005)

I'd go with this solution. It's a logical place for attribution and it
doesn't really go anywhere else without losing specific association
with the table contents.

h

--
--- 
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

[WSG] Source Attribution for data tables

[Terrence Wood]

Hi all,

how would/do you markup the source attribution for data tables when there
is already a caption?

EXAMPLE

Table 1 - Summary of Key Indicators
[data]
.
.
.
[data]

Source: Foo Corp 2005


Should the caption be changed to include the attribution?
Table 1 - Summary of Key Indicators (source: Foo Corp 2005)



kind regards
Terrence Wood.




**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**