At 12:28 PM 9/5/2006, you wrote: >Jackie- > >Yes--and notice that the article sort of sidesteps what a LOOKUP really >is--I think LOOKUP confuses everyone because it doesn't really fit >any real query >or data classification. The query classification is for all queries, and >the data classifications are for the types of data--and the fact that you >physically lookup up the data in a specific source is NOT a data >type--which is >what makes the classification so nebulous (and in my opinion worthless). > >Joan Joan, While the article does not specifically address a definition for LOOKUP (but then again, it doesn't specifically define any of the DATA classifications), based on the information the article does contain, I believe the following are reasonable conclusions: 1. LOOKUP is not for requesting lookups ("if you request a lookup, it is classified as a QUERY -- not as a DEED, MARRIAGE, or LOOKUP") 2. LOOKUP should contain transcribed data ("Only transcribed data are classified as one of the data types.") 3. No mention is made of offering to DO a lookup. In a way (inmo), lookup offers are the question "Does anyone need a lookup in XX source?" What classification would you suggest using for posts containing 5-6 different types of data (census, marriage, death, obituary and cemetery)? Jackie -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/437 - Release Date: 9/4/2006