I can't say that I overly disagree with Ken's view, but...

True, not all tradesmen are comfortable with, or motivated to provide,
documentation that is recognizably descended from the methodology
established by the more academically inclined professions. But if the
purpose of documentation is to provide a continuum of knowledge of the
history of a structure, then, to be truly useful, limitations have to be
placed on how idiosyncratic the format can be before it passes out of the
realm of useful knowledge. Some methodology, or methodologies, can be
evolved that will make the transfer of knowledge less problematic than will
be the case if just the need to provide something, anything at all, is
stressed.

If one should accept Ken's argument that limitations must be placed on
expectations for highly structured presentations in codified formats from
those who's training is in the trades rather than the more mentative
pursuits within the preservation community, then it is also reasonable to
assume that future tradespeople for whom the documentation might serve a
purpose in furthering their own involvement with the structure, probable
will have little motivation to decipher the documentation if it is too
obscurely articulated, either because of reliance on academic forms of
address, or the personally evolved methods of the undirected.

When I suggested that we might offer a workshop in documentation, I was
hoping that it's contents would result from preparation that would take
into account the need for a different set of expectations from that
expected from the professions less divorced from formal articulation in
whatever media. What I wrote to the other members of the PTN EC was:

"I don't think that I agree with the position that the criteria for
adequate
documentation should be construed so loosely. My suggestion is that, first,
we take some time to consider how to articulate what the need for
documentation is, what questions it must answer, and then elaborate on some
specific methodologies to achieve those goals, and formats to present the
results. Then, ideally, a demonstration of documentation techniques should
be set up prior to any other demonstrations. "

I still think that that much structure is necessary.

John's description of documentation that stays with the structure is
something that I strongly agree with. In my work as a furniture restorer it
has always struck me that the tradition in clock maintenance and
restoration, where  descriptions of past work performed are expected to be
found somewhere within the piece, is much more satisfactory than the
tradition in other kinds of antique restoration where, except in museum
settings and other rare instances, no documentation accompanies the piece.
With that in mind I have also often provided similar documentation within
the structures I've been involved with, and suggested it to others. One
house restorer of my acquaintance attaches a sealed plastic bag to an attic
joist with photographs and a written description of the work performed.

Much as this is to be encouraged, it doesn't lessen the need to provide the
tradesmen producing the documentation with some guidance as to what the
material needs to do to be useful.

Bruce