From: Benny M. <ben...@gm...> - 2009-04-11 13:59:06
|
2009/4/11, Theo Tulley <tj....@ph...>: > If I need to create new source references, they are designed to be > easily shared. Source references cannot be shared. They are the unique link between one object (person/event/...) and a source. You should not use the term 'shared' when speaking about source references. It are the sources that are shared. It is the same as an event reference, which holds the role the person plays in an event. This role is also unique to that person. Benny |
From: Theo T. <tj....@ph...> - 2009-04-11 15:44:12
|
Benny Malengier wrote: > Source references cannot be shared. They are the unique link between > one object (person/event/...) and a source. You should not use the > term 'shared' when speaking about source references. It are the > sources that are shared. > It is the same as an event reference, which holds the role the person > plays in an event. This role is also unique to that person. > Thanks - obviously I was misusing the term. I was writing about sources. That said, how necessary is a source reference (as above), generally? Is not the information supplied by the context, as I outlined? As you explain, they are unique to the person or event. So I am puzzled by Frederico's need to access many duplicates. Event references need to be edited to show brides or grooms - though this seems obvious - what is missed if these entries are not made? I propose in future to enter marriages only as family events, and the role is family which appears to be the default. Yours sincerely, Theo Tulley. tj....@ph... SFHG Member No: 11619 |
From: Frederico M. <fs...@gm...> - 2009-04-11 18:21:30
|
Hi, On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Theo Tulley <tj....@ph...> wrote: > As you explain, they are unique to the person or event. So I am puzzled > by Frederico's need to access many duplicates. > > Event references need to be edited to show brides or grooms - though > this seems obvious - what is missed if these entries are not made? I > propose in future to enter marriages only as family events, and the role > is family which appears to be the default. I'll try to make it clearer why I personally have many (sometimes more than 10, although typically 2 to 4) identical source references scattered by different events on different individuals. If I have a Civil Birth Record of some Registry in Lisbon for an individual, that generally contains information about: - The individual birth (obviously :) ) - An approximation of the year of birth of both parents (since it records the age of the parents) - The occupation of the parents - Witnesses and godfather/godmother (and their occupations and place of birht) - Marriage data (including the name of the spouse) and death record for the individual, since they are added to the Birth Certificate. So, as you can see, they are unique to the person but convey important (sometimes crucial) information regarding other events and other individuals. Now, my Source Reference points to a Source called "Birth Records of the 4th Civil Registry of Lisbon", with the Log Date being the date of the record and the Volume/Page the number of the record and the page. This works as intended in terms of saying exactly where I got the information since the events point to something like: "Birth Records of the 4th Civil Registry of Lisbon, Year 1913, Record 12, Page 4" This is the source reference that I copy to the clipboard and then add to any event that can be backed up by information contained in this source reference. With this being done any modification on the source reference (say, a correction to the Page, or the sharing of a note) must be done manually by finding every instance of the source reference since they aren't shared, but copied. Modifying a source reference in a particular event doesn't change any other "equal" source reference. The impact of this is of course smaller or greater depending on how one uses Sources and Source References. Regards, Frederico |
From: Theo T. <tj....@ph...> - 2009-04-11 18:51:55
|
Frederico Mun~oz wrote: <SNIP> > I'll try to make it clearer why I personally have many (sometimes more > than 10, although typically 2 to 4) identical source references > scattered by different events on different individuals. > <SNIP> Very clear! You are luckier than I've been with the information in birth records. However I would still make the individual record a "shared" source (in Gramps terminology), calling it "Birth certificate of Name1 Name2" - then editing it would change the entries wherever you had copied it. It would be easily located in the list of shared sources which appears when you select one for use. Yours sincerely, Theo Tulley. tj....@ph... SFHG Member No: 11619 |
From: Frederico M. <fs...@gm...> - 2009-04-11 19:03:35
|
Hello, On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Theo Tulley <tj....@ph...> wrote: (...) > Very clear! You are luckier than I've been with the information in birth > records. Well, this was an example only really applicable to civil records that only began in the 20th century. Before that everything is in the Catholic Church archives and the information is less, namely only occupation of parents. YMMV since they are more diverse given the lack of a central template, as it were. Other countries have more data in Census, for example, which lends itself to different treatments as well. > However I would still make the individual record a "shared" source (in > Gramps terminology), calling it "Birth certificate of Name1 Name2" - then > editing it would change the entries wherever you had copied it. It would be > easily located in the list of shared sources which appears when you select > one for use. What you mention is one of the two main approaches that I've seen people using: one is what I've described, the other the "promotion" of each record to a full-blown source as you mentioned, which has the advantage of making it clearer exactly what the source is ("Birth Record of Foo" is more immediately comprehensible than a Volume/Page on a book) and making it easier to share the source reference since every source only contains information related to each specific event (so it is trivial to find the source text and scanned image). Regards, Frederico |
From: Michael L. <mic...@pc...> - 2009-04-12 00:54:30
|
On Sunday 12 April 2009 05:03:28 Frederico Muñoz wrote: > Hello, > > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Theo Tulley <tj....@ph...> wrote: > (...) > > > Very clear! You are luckier than I've been with the information in birth > > records. > > Well, this was an example only really applicable to civil records that > only began in the 20th century. Before that everything is in the > Catholic Church archives and the information is less, namely only > occupation of parents. YMMV since they are more diverse given the lack > of a central template, as it were. Other countries have more data in > Census, for example, which lends itself to different treatments as > well. > I'll jump in again here and agree with Frederico on how sources and source references are most useful in versions 3.0+. A source is best expressed as a "bound" collection of information. In English records that I mostly deal with examples are a parish register (a book originally kept in each church), an online index of births (such as FreeBMD), a transcription of marriages (Phillimore's transcriptions done in the early 20th century), the recorded recollections of my father (I have "interviewed" him about his life), personal communications with other researchers, and so on. A source reference is the actual entry in the source that contains the data specific to the event. Again in English records this might be the schedule entry (one or more lines on a form) in a census, the entry in the parish register, the line in the particular Phillimore volume, etc. These are specified in the source reference by the date and Volume/page fields. The detail and quality of these various sources varies immensely. This means that a source reference may be used only once (such as a baptism in a very old parish register which may contain nothing but the person's name and the date), twice for a Phillimore entry (one for husband, one for wife) or many times for a schedule entry in a census record (my gg-grandparents had 20 children and up to 10 of them occur in various census schedules.) I also occasionally have to use source references as the only reference to a person (such as father in a marriage record for whom I have no other information.) Because these source references aren't shared, I have had to chase down references when I find a typo or want to add another note. > > However I would still make the individual record a "shared" source (in > > Gramps terminology), calling it "Birth certificate of Name1 Name2" - then > > editing it would change the entries wherever you had copied it. It would > > be easily located in the list of shared sources which appears when you > > select one for use. > > What you mention is one of the two main approaches that I've seen > people using: one is what I've described, the other the "promotion" of > each record to a full-blown source as you mentioned, which has the > advantage of making it clearer exactly what the source is ("Birth > Record of Foo" is more immediately comprehensible than a Volume/Page > on a book) and making it easier to share the source reference since > every source only contains information related to each specific event > (so it is trivial to find the source text and scanned image). > I have used this approach when I have a copy of a certificate such as an English or Australian BMD certificate which is the original certificate or a copy of the originally issued certificate. I am at present reviewing this approach because I potentially could end up with thousands of such sources and therefore introduce unneeded complexity, especially when producing reports. -- ==== Michael Lightfoot Canberra, Australia OPC Merther & St Breock, Cornwall see http://www.cornwall-opc.org mic...@pc... ==== |