From: Ken W. <kg...@lu...> - 2009-10-27 05:52:38
|
I have just got started with genealogy and Gramps by taking over the data my late father collected in a book 20 years ago. I was quite surprised that by the time I had entered the data he collected, there were over 700 people in it. So far all of the data I have is based on the work he did. From here I intend to add data collected from other sources. Mindful of the importance of being able, later, to identify the source of each piece of data, I am not quite sure how to proceed from here. Does it make sense at this point to try to add a source reference referring to my fathers book so that later, after data is entered from other sources, the source of each bit of data can be identified? Is there a way to add the same source note to every event/person in the database at this point without having to do it one at a time? Is that a good idea? Or would it make sense to keep this as a separate family file and create a separate file for information for other sources. That seems to me to be cumbersome or maybe even not workable since it would deal with mostly the same people. I have tried to get a sense of how to deal with this from the documents. Maybe when I get to know my way around I will see that I could have found these answers, so I hope I am not asking a question that is already answered. -- Ken Walker Qualicum Beach, BC |
From: Benny M. <ben...@gm...> - 2009-10-27 10:34:50
|
2009/10/27 Ken Walker <kg...@lu...>: > I have just got started with genealogy and Gramps by taking over the > data my late father collected in a book 20 years ago. I was quite > surprised that by the time I had entered the data he collected, there > were over 700 people in it. So far all of the data I have is based on > the work he did. From here I intend to add data collected from other > sources. Mindful of the importance of being able, later, to identify > the source of each piece of data, I am not quite sure how to proceed > from here. > > Does it make sense at this point to try to add a source reference > referring to my fathers book so that later, after data is entered from > other sources, the source of each bit of data can be identified? Is Yes, this makes a lot of sense. Of course, you could add for every new item a source, and then per definition everything that has no source is the data from your father. > there a way to add the same source note to every event/person in the > database at this point without having to do it one at a time? Is that a > good idea? It is a good idea, but I don't think there is a way to do it at the moment. There is the feature to add a source to imported data, but I think it is not working for our own .gramps data. If all your data can be stored in the GEDCOM format, you can create a new empty family tree, check in the preferences 'add default source on import', then import your data from a gedcom file you exported the other family with. We should enable this possibility also for our own data format.... > Or would it make sense to keep this as a separate family file and create > a separate file for information for other sources. That seems to me to > be cumbersome or maybe even not workable since it would deal with mostly > the same people. No, GRAMPS does not support merging at the moment. Some people are working on that to allow collaboration, but for now, you should keep only one instance of your data. > I have tried to get a sense of how to deal with this from the > documents. Maybe when I get to know my way around I will see that I > could have found these answers, so I hope I am not asking a question > that is already answered. Adding sources is very important. To simplify it for you, use the clipboard. Open it, and drag the source you want to share with other objects there, or the source reference you want to copy (source references are unique, they cannot be shared). When you need the source or sourcereference, just drag it to the object you need. Eg, for a birth certificate, you add a source, and for the first item you enter, eg new person, you add a reference to the source with in this reference the log date of the certificate in the source (birth registry parish St John eg) and eg in the notes a transcript of the certificate (don't forget to share this note also in the source itself). Then drag this source reference to the clipboard, and reuse it on the birth event of the person, creation of the witness persons, .... Benny > -- > Ken Walker > Qualicum Beach, BC > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users > |
From: doug <do...@o2...> - 2009-10-27 12:03:48
|
Ken Walker wrote: > I have just got started with genealogy and Gramps by taking over the > data my late father collected in a book 20 years ago. I was quite > surprised that by the time I had entered the data he collected, there > were over 700 people in it. So far all of the data I have is based on > the work he did. From here I intend to add data collected from other > sources. Mindful of the importance of being able, later, to identify > the source of each piece of data, I am not quite sure how to proceed > from here. > > Does it make sense at this point to try to add a source reference > referring to my fathers book so that later, after data is entered from > other sources, the source of each bit of data can be identified? Is > there a way to add the same source note to every event/person in the > database at this point without having to do it one at a time? Is that a > good idea? > > Or would it make sense to keep this as a separate family file and create > a separate file for information for other sources. That seems to me to > be cumbersome or maybe even not workable since it would deal with mostly > the same people. > > I have tried to get a sense of how to deal with this from the > documents. Maybe when I get to know my way around I will see that I > could have found these answers, so I hope I am not asking a question > that is already answered. > I'd be inclined to treat your father's book as a repository; then you can record where the physical object is kept, etc. The book will also be a source, or perhaps several sources, eg. 'father's book text','family documents' inserted in the book, 'family photos' included in the book, etc. All these sources will have the same 'father's book' repository. The various bits of data will have one or more of these sources. I don't think there's any way to add a source to a whole batch of data at once; however once you've defined a source you can copy it to the clipboard. Then adding it to a lot of data, one at a time is much less tedious. Doug |
From: Gerald B. <ger...@gm...> - 2009-10-27 12:53:05
|
> I'd be inclined to treat your father's book as a repository; then you > can record where the physical object is kept, etc. NO NO NO! A book is a source; a repository is the place one should go to see that source, in this case, Ken's home. -- Gerald Britton |
From: Doug B. <dou...@gm...> - 2009-10-27 21:00:38
|
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Duncan Lithgow <dun...@gm...> wrote: > Would anyone be willing to write a quick XML parsing script to fix > this guys problem? It's just a matter of looking for <event>,<place> > etc where there is no <source> tag and putting one in with an > reference to the source... It's regex beyond me, but could be done. How about if I write a gramps tool that allows one to add a (possibly shared) source to all of the objects? That would be easier (for me) and useful for the longer term... -Doug > Duncan > -- > Linux user #372812 | http://lithgow-schmidt.dk > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users > |
From: Benny M. <ben...@gm...> - 2009-10-27 21:53:37
|
2009/10/27 Doug Blank <dou...@gm...>: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Duncan Lithgow > <dun...@gm...> wrote: >> Would anyone be willing to write a quick XML parsing script to fix >> this guys problem? It's just a matter of looking for <event>,<place> >> etc where there is no <source> tag and putting one in with an >> reference to the source... It's regex beyond me, but could be done. > > How about if I write a gramps tool that allows one to add a (possibly > shared) source to all of the objects? That would be easier (for me) > and useful for the longer term... I think these things a user does once are better done as a tool. For this one, a nice thing would be to use the timestamp, and have eg a way to say: add source S0005 to all records changed the last week. Then as with batch tools is normal, an overview of all objects that will have the source added, with the ability to remove some, and then Continue that does the batch operation. There are some tools to use as a base for that. Benny > > -Doug > >> Duncan >> -- >> Linux user #372812 | http://lithgow-schmidt.dk >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA >> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your >> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay >> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference >> _______________________________________________ >> Gramps-users mailing list >> Gra...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users > |
From: Dave M. <n8...@ra...> - 2009-10-28 02:48:28
|
I would appreciate having such a script. I have a similar problem. I am using a file that was started 12-13 years ago when I was totally clueless about citing sources. All of the old data came from family members memories. Now I am trying to get the database in good shape to post online. I have a little over 300 people to enter that same source. Duncan Lithgow wrote: > Would anyone be willing to write a quick XML parsing script to fix > this guys problem? It's just a matter of looking for <event>,<place> > etc where there is no <source> tag and putting one in with an > reference to the source... It's regex beyond me, but could be done. > > Duncan > -- Dave Marshall N8OAY n8...@ra... N8OAY's Railfan Help Desk http://www.railfanswelcome.com All Ohio Scanner Club http://www.aosc.org |
From: Doug B. <dou...@gm...> - 2009-10-28 03:55:56
Attachments:
AttachSourceTool.py
AttachSourceTool.gpr.py
|
Ok, for you users that have many good backup copies of your data, and you want to try an experimental "Attach Source Tool", read on. Currently this only works for people objects, but in gramps3.2 we'll see if we can get this to work for all of the major objects. 1) Make sure you have backups of your data in gramps format (either package or xml). 2) Start a practice database, and import your gramps data into it. 3) Take the attached AttachSourceTool.py and place it in your user directory, in the .gramps/plugins/ folder. For more details, see: http://www.gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=GRAMPS_User_Directory 4) Restart gramps, making sure to open the practice database 5) Select the tool from the Tool -> Database Processing -> Attach Source... >From the Options tab, select to whom you would like to attach a source, and whether you want to make it a new source, or an existing source. If you want to make it a new source, enter the source text that you would like to put in the title of the new source. If you would like to use an existing source, you need to know the ID of the source (such as "S00019") and enter that in the source ID location. When you are ready, press "Apply" a single source will be shared with all of these people. A results tab will appear. You can double-click a name link to bring up the person. You can go back to the Options tab and attach more sources, or close the window when done. If you want to delete the source, just go to the Source View, right click on the source, and select "Remove". To select a different set of people, you may need to create a new filter. You can create a new filter in the People View, from the menu Edit -> person Filter Editor. In the future, we should be able to add other objects, and their filters. Please let us know if that works for you, or if you have any problems. You might want to run Tools -> Database Repair -> Check and Repair database... afterwards to make sure everything looks ok. -Doug PS - for those really crazy users that are testing trunk, I've also attached a new .gpr.py plugin file. Put both of the files in your user plugins folder, and test it there. |
From: Gerald B. <ger...@gm...> - 2009-10-28 16:27:09
|
Forgot to include the list in my reply ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gerald Britton <ger...@gm...> Date: Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:25 PM Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] New user with questions about recording sources To: doug <do...@o2...> I think that your definition of repository differs from the generally accepted one in genealogical circles. It is generally defined as a place where one would go to see a source. Now, a place may be a bricks-and-mortar building like a library or an archive or your own home, or it may be something less concrete, like a web site. For example, I have both: Internet Archive (www.archive.org) and Robarts Library, University of Toronto as repositories. In fact, I have some sources that are in both repositories, so I include both of the above under the repository tab for my source. Anyway you look at it, a book is not a repository, it is a source. The book's repository is where one would go to see the actual book. On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 8:10 AM, doug <do...@o2...> wrote: > Gerald Britton wrote: >>> >>> I'd be inclined to treat your father's book as a repository; then you >>> can record where the physical object is kept, etc. >> >> NO NO NO! A book is a source; a repository is the place one should >> go to see that source, in this case, Ken's home. >> > Yes and No. > I'd argue that a repository is an object that holds sources; it isn't a > simple address. For example "Genes Reunited" would be a repository for me, > not "http://www.genesreunited.co.uk". If the URL changed, that wouldn't > make it a new repository, it would still be "Genes Reunited".Likewise a box > file at my home containing old documents, etc.would be a repository, whose > address will undoubtedly change when I pass it on to one of my descendants. > > Doug > -- Gerald Britton -- Gerald Britton |
From: Gerald B. <ger...@gm...> - 2009-10-28 18:48:35
|
I see where you're going though I still would argue that an object (like a bible or a box or a file drawer) is not a repository; those are things _in_ some repository. If you have a family bible that is passed around (not sure that is such a good idea if it contains valuable information, but that's just my opinion) then record the repository as its customary or most frequent storage location. Of course, even government archives and city libraries move or move some of their contents from time to time. The best we can do is record the repository for the source on the day we saw it. That gives the next person a place to start to find the source. I don't think make a lot of sense to add an address field to a source. It wouldn't be exportable, for one thing. More importantly, objects (other than buildings) don't have addresses; they are _at_ addresses. e.g. your car doesn't have an address; it has a permanent home (your driveway at your house), making your property the "repository" for your car, if you will. In your case, your family bible doesn't have an address; it is normally _at_ some address, which is its repository. In gramps you would record the address where it is usually found as the repository. So the bookbinder wouldn't be included! More generally, I find it helpful to try to follow the classic "Cite your sources" for these things. Even though it was written before the Internet age, the principles it lays out are adaptable and have been followed by genealogists -- both professional and amateur -- for decades. I'm curious to know the advantage you gain in your own research from making "Family Bible" a repository in gramps instead of a source? I have a similar (falling apart) family bible, which is my gramps source "Britton Family Bible." The repository is my house, where it currently is. Even if I gave it to my brother or future grandchildren, the reader of my family history would know where to start to find it later, which is the point, I think. On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:04 PM, doug <do...@o2...> wrote: > Gerald Britton wrote: >> >> I think that your definition of repository differs from the generally >> accepted one in genealogical circles. It is generally defined as a >> place where one would go to see a source. Now, a place may be a >> bricks-and-mortar building like a library or an archive or your own >> home, or it may be something less concrete, like a web site. For >> example, I have both: >> >> Internet Archive (www.archive.org) >> >> and >> >> Robarts Library, University of Toronto >> >> as repositories. In fact, I have some sources that are in both >> repositories, so I include both of the above under the repository tab >> for my source. >> >> Anyway you look at it, a book is not a repository, it is a source. >> The book's repository is where one would go to see the actual book. >> >> O<snip> > > I'm not really disagreeing: it's just that I'm saying "the place where one > would go to see a source" sometimes has to be interpreted more generally as > meaning "the key to finding where you would go to see the source", say when > dealing with a unique family physical source not deposited in a public > library. > Of course, in most normal circumstances the book is a source; the source > information gives publication details; and the repository will be a > permanent library of some description. > > But as an example, there is an old German bible that records births, > marriages and deaths in my family. It has been with the son of my cousin for > a number of years; then with me; currently with a bookbinder; then it's > coming back to me and no doubt will either go back or be passed on to > another relative. Using a rigid definition of repository, This gives the > bible 5 or 6 repositories, according to a rigid definition of 'place'. To > me that makes nonsense of the idea of a repository, which ought to be > something stable and relatively permanent (bricks and mortar). It makes > better sense (from my point of view) to take the bible as a source (in > respect of its contents), and the physical bible as the repository of those > contents. The repository 'Family Bible' then becomes a dependable key to > finding wherever its contents are going to be located > > (On the other hand if Gramps had incorporated addresses as a field in > Sources I wouldn't be resorting to this workaround :) ) > Doug >> > -- Gerald Britton |
From: Richard E. <ric...@es...> - 2009-10-28 22:26:31
|
I am new to the community, and it is impressive how active this group is. Thank you for producing GRAMPS and sharing it with others. Is the classic "Cite your sources" the Lackey book? This is the one I found which appears to match your description: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0878052860 Is that the one you recommend using? Thank you, Richard Esplin On Wed 28 October 2009 12:48:05 Gerald Britton <ger...@gm...> wrote: <snip> > More generally, I find it helpful to try to follow the classic "Cite > your sources" for these things. Even though it was written before the > Internet age, the principles it lays out are adaptable and have been > followed by genealogists -- both professional and amateur -- for > decades. <snip> |
From: Benny M. <ben...@gm...> - 2009-10-29 08:47:03
|
2009/10/28 Gerald Britton <ger...@gm...>: > I see where you're going though I still would argue that an object > (like a bible or a box or a file drawer) is not a repository; those > are things _in_ some repository. If you have a family bible that is > passed around (not sure that is such a good idea if it contains > valuable information, but that's just my opinion) then record the > repository as its customary or most frequent storage location. Of > course, even government archives and city libraries move or move some > of their contents from time to time. The best we can do is record the > repository for the source on the day we saw it. That gives the next > person a place to start to find the source. > > I don't think make a lot of sense to add an address field to a source. > It wouldn't be exportable, for one thing. More importantly, objects > (other than buildings) don't have addresses; they are _at_ addresses. > e.g. your car doesn't have an address; it has a permanent home (your > driveway at your house), making your property the "repository" for > your car, if you will. In your case, your family bible doesn't have > an address; it is normally _at_ some address, which is its repository. > In gramps you would record the address where it is usually found as > the repository. So the bookbinder wouldn't be included! > > More generally, I find it helpful to try to follow the classic "Cite > your sources" for these things. Even though it was written before the > Internet age, the principles it lays out are adaptable and have been > followed by genealogists -- both professional and amateur -- for > decades. > > I'm curious to know the advantage you gain in your own research from > making "Family Bible" a repository in gramps instead of a source? I > have a similar (falling apart) family bible, which is my gramps source > "Britton Family Bible." The repository is my house, where it > currently is. Even if I gave it to my brother or future > grandchildren, the reader of my family history would know where to > start to find it later, which is the point, I think. Just to come clear, I don't mind if a user wants to organize this workflow like that. The disadvantage is that the GRAMPS developers will not add support for such a workflow, but here that is probably no problem. I also like to split up my sources in some cases, to make them easier to handle. So I would then have a Source, 'Family Bible', and a Source 'Family Bible - section 1' My hope then is that in the future some support for source parts can be created inside of GRAMPS, so that large sources are easier to handle. Benny |
From: Duncan L. <dun...@gm...> - 2009-10-27 20:44:39
|
Would anyone be willing to write a quick XML parsing script to fix this guys problem? It's just a matter of looking for <event>,<place> etc where there is no <source> tag and putting one in with an reference to the source... It's regex beyond me, but could be done. Duncan -- Linux user #372812 | http://lithgow-schmidt.dk |
From: doug <do...@o2...> - 2009-10-28 12:11:48
|
Gerald Britton wrote: >> I'd be inclined to treat your father's book as a repository; then you >> can record where the physical object is kept, etc. > > NO NO NO! A book is a source; a repository is the place one should > go to see that source, in this case, Ken's home. > Yes and No. I'd argue that a repository is an object that holds sources; it isn't a simple address. For example "Genes Reunited" would be a repository for me, not "http://www.genesreunited.co.uk". If the URL changed, that wouldn't make it a new repository, it would still be "Genes Reunited".Likewise a box file at my home containing old documents, etc.would be a repository, whose address will undoubtedly change when I pass it on to one of my descendants. Doug |
From: doug <do...@o2...> - 2009-11-02 12:25:59
|
Gerald, Sorry, I've just noticed our postings haven't been going to the list - my fault. I think the discussion has reached a point where our differences are becoming more metaphysical than substantial. I do agree the standard model is the one to encourage. Only for uncommon occasions where the particular situation fits unhappily in the standard model, do other Gramps options offer a more satisfactory way of dealing with it. Doug Gerald Britton wrote: > Well I would argue that your home, at your address, is the repository > where you father's book can be found. I do think that that would be > the standard model which we should encourage. Of course you are free > to arrange your data as you feel is most convenient for your famy > history. > > > > On 11/1/09, doug <do...@o2...> wrote: >> You describe the common situation. >> However Gramps offers one the options of at least three types of >> standard repository which are *not* places but 'receptacles' of records >> (that will be found at some place). >> >> In my original response to the gramps-user who started this thread, I >> suggested his father's book might perhaps contain a collection of >> material besides just text. I had in mind something like a loose-leaf >> book, which could equally well be described as an album. >> >> 'My Father's Book', of Type 'Album' and with my address, would then be >> a perfectly regular Gramps Repository >> >> >> Doug >> >> >> Gerald Britton wrote: >>> A repository is more than "just an address." It is some establishment >>> (e.g library, archive, your home, Google books) that _may_ have an >>> address (and/or a web site), but is at least identifiable as a place >>> to go to find the source. That's why my "Family Bible" is at the >>> repository "Home of Gerald Britton." Whether I move or not, the >>> repository stays the same, though its address may change. >>> >>> I thought it might be helpful to paraphrase a family bible entry from >>> "Cite Your Sources," which is a standard we would do well to follow: >>> >>> "Family bible record of James Spears of Kentwood, LA, USA. The Holy >>> Bible (New York, Zondervan, 1994), p. ii, owner (2009) Britney >>> Spears, 1 Rodeo Drive, Los Angeles CA. >>> >>> The first part, up to "owner" is the source record. The second part >>> describes the repository, which is where the bible was when we >>> examined it. Britney may move (probably will!) but we know where the >>> bible was in 2009 and know where to begin (call her up!) if we want to >>> examine the source in person (good luck with that in Britney's case!) >>> >>> I think that it's important that we champion standard approaches to >>> our records while remaining flexible. Otherwise, future generations >>> (or even our immediate families) will be confused, not to mention >>> professional genealogists. >>> >>> tain > |
From: Gerald B. <ger...@gm...> - 2009-11-02 14:07:28
|
I'm still curious to know what you would do if you had several books in your possession. Would you class each as a repository? But then that would mean changing all their addresses the next time you move (sounds tedious to me!) OTOH if your home was the repository, you'd only have one address to change. So, to fit your requirements (happily!) into the standard model, you'd have something like: Source: Family Bible, (Pub and Sons, NY, 1811), p. 12345, Doug's Home (2009) Source: Father's album, (no publisher), p. 456, Doug's Home (2009) Repository: Doug's Home, 1 Main St., Toadsuck, Texas, USA Does that make any sense? On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:11 AM, doug <do...@o2...> wrote: > Gerald, > Sorry, I've just noticed our postings haven't been going to the list - my > fault. > > I think the discussion has reached a point where our differences are > becoming more metaphysical than substantial. > > I do agree the standard model is the one to encourage. > Only for uncommon occasions where the particular situation fits unhappily in > the standard model, do other Gramps options offer a more satisfactory way of > dealing with it. > > Doug > > > > > > Gerald Britton wrote: >> >> Well I would argue that your home, at your address, is the repository >> where you father's book can be found. I do think that that would be >> the standard model which we should encourage. Of course you are free >> to arrange your data as you feel is most convenient for your famy >> history. >> >> >> >> On 11/1/09, doug <do...@o2...> wrote: >>> >>> You describe the common situation. >>> However Gramps offers one the options of at least three types of >>> standard repository which are *not* places but 'receptacles' of records >>> (that will be found at some place). >>> >>> In my original response to the gramps-user who started this thread, I >>> suggested his father's book might perhaps contain a collection of >>> material besides just text. I had in mind something like a loose-leaf >>> book, which could equally well be described as an album. >>> >>> 'My Father's Book', of Type 'Album' and with my address, would then be >>> a perfectly regular Gramps Repository >>> >>> >>> Doug >>> >>> >>> Gerald Britton wrote: >>>> >>>> A repository is more than "just an address." It is some establishment >>>> (e.g library, archive, your home, Google books) that _may_ have an >>>> address (and/or a web site), but is at least identifiable as a place >>>> to go to find the source. That's why my "Family Bible" is at the >>>> repository "Home of Gerald Britton." Whether I move or not, the >>>> repository stays the same, though its address may change. >>>> >>>> I thought it might be helpful to paraphrase a family bible entry from >>>> "Cite Your Sources," which is a standard we would do well to follow: >>>> >>>> "Family bible record of James Spears of Kentwood, LA, USA. The Holy >>>> Bible (New York, Zondervan, 1994), p. ii, owner (2009) Britney >>>> Spears, 1 Rodeo Drive, Los Angeles CA. >>>> >>>> The first part, up to "owner" is the source record. The second part >>>> describes the repository, which is where the bible was when we >>>> examined it. Britney may move (probably will!) but we know where the >>>> bible was in 2009 and know where to begin (call her up!) if we want to >>>> examine the source in person (good luck with that in Britney's case!) >>>> >>>> I think that it's important that we champion standard approaches to >>>> our records while remaining flexible. Otherwise, future generations >>>> (or even our immediate families) will be confused, not to mention >>>> professional genealogists. >>>> >>>> tain >> > > -- Gerald Britton |
From: Frederico M. <fs...@gm...> - 2009-11-02 15:32:53
|
Hello, For what is worth the rational I used when I wrote the Repositories in GRAMPS article (http://www.gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=Repositories_in_GRAMPS) is the one that Gerald is talking about. The whole article kind of loses its sense if thinking otherwise, although the article itself isn't meant as revealed truth but merely as *my* interpretation of how to use it. As such it can be changed, maybe it's not clear and maybe it only exposes one way of doing things, to the detriment of others. I have my individual library as a Repository, and any books in my possession that I've used as sources are link to that Repository. If I move to a new home the repository stays the same (eventually changing the Address). The same book can be also linked to another repository (say, a public library) at the same time. If ultimately the book changes repositories I reflect that change by changing the Repository Reference. To me this seems like the logic way of using the facility, and easier than to bind the source (a book, etc.) to a location by reflecting that in the Source itself. Regards, Frederico |
From: doug <do...@o2...> - 2009-11-05 10:12:22
|
If had several books, I'd treat them as sources, same as you. I would treat an album as an Album repository, an archive as an Archive repository, and a collection as a Collection repository, taking repositories to be "receptacles" that happen to be housed in some place but are not synonymous with that place. To give a few examples, the Royal Harwich Yacht Club Archive is a collection of documents housed in the University Library of Cambridge, not an integral part of that Library, but on loan. It could be required to be returned to its owners at some time. The Haddon Collection is an ethnographic collection housed in the Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology of Cambridge; but it could in principle be transferred to the Pitt-Rivers Museum in Oxford. The Sutton Hoo collection is an assembly of finds housed in the British Museum. If some people had their way, the finds would go back to the Sutton Hoo Museum at the site where they were excavated. If I had a large number of important books - I don't - I might consider treating them as the "DRB library" and eventually bequeath it to a grateful nation, stipulating that the individual books should be labelled "DRB Library", and identified in the Library's General Catalogue, maybe kept together in a separate room. My heirs would reserve the right to remove the library if they became dissatisfied with the way it was being maintained. Things do get a bit "metaphysical" when the object is difficult to classify. Say something containing a heterogeneous assembly of "documents": I think you would classify anything between two covers as a 'book' and treat it as a single Source. I think Benny would probably define several Sources, corresponding to the different components of the assembly, if I understand him correctly. I would do the same, but if the object itself were something like a loose-leaf file I might also define that as an "Album" repository and attribute the Sources to that Repository. Doug Gerald Britton wrote: > I'm still curious to know what you would do if you had several books > in your possession. Would you class each as a repository? But then > that would mean changing all their addresses the next time you move > (sounds tedious to me!) OTOH if your home was the repository, you'd > only have one address to change. So, to fit your requirements > (happily!) into the standard model, you'd have something like: > > Source: Family Bible, (Pub and Sons, NY, 1811), p. 12345, Doug's Home (2009) > Source: Father's album, (no publisher), p. 456, Doug's Home (2009) > > Repository: Doug's Home, 1 Main St., Toadsuck, Texas, USA > > Does that make any sense? > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:11 AM, doug <do...@o2...> wrote: >> Gerald, >> Sorry, I've just noticed our postings haven't been going to the list - my >> fault. >> >> I think the discussion has reached a point where our differences are >> becoming more metaphysical than substantial. >> >> I do agree the standard model is the one to encourage. >> Only for uncommon occasions where the particular situation fits unhappily in >> the standard model, do other Gramps options offer a more satisfactory way of >> dealing with it. >> >> Doug >> >> >> >> >> >> Gerald Britton wrote: >>> Well I would argue that your home, at your address, is the repository >>> where you father's book can be found. I do think that that would be >>> the standard model which we should encourage. Of course you are free >>> to arrange your data as you feel is most convenient for your famy >>> history. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/1/09, doug <do...@o2...> wrote: >>>> You describe the common situation. >>>> However Gramps offers one the options of at least three types of >>>> standard repository which are *not* places but 'receptacles' of records >>>> (that will be found at some place). >>>> >>>> In my original response to the gramps-user who started this thread, I >>>> suggested his father's book might perhaps contain a collection of >>>> material besides just text. I had in mind something like a loose-leaf >>>> book, which could equally well be described as an album. >>>> >>>> 'My Father's Book', of Type 'Album' and with my address, would then be >>>> a perfectly regular Gramps Repository >>>> >>>> >>>> Doug >>>> >>>> >>>> Gerald Britton wrote: >>>>> A repository is more than "just an address." It is some establishment >>>>> (e.g library, archive, your home, Google books) that _may_ have an >>>>> address (and/or a web site), but is at least identifiable as a place >>>>> to go to find the source. That's why my "Family Bible" is at the >>>>> repository "Home of Gerald Britton." Whether I move or not, the >>>>> repository stays the same, though its address may change. >>>>> >>>>> I thought it might be helpful to paraphrase a family bible entry from >>>>> "Cite Your Sources," which is a standard we would do well to follow: >>>>> >>>>> "Family bible record of James Spears of Kentwood, LA, USA. The Holy >>>>> Bible (New York, Zondervan, 1994), p. ii, owner (2009) Britney >>>>> Spears, 1 Rodeo Drive, Los Angeles CA. >>>>> >>>>> The first part, up to "owner" is the source record. The second part >>>>> describes the repository, which is where the bible was when we >>>>> examined it. Britney may move (probably will!) but we know where the >>>>> bible was in 2009 and know where to begin (call her up!) if we want to >>>>> examine the source in person (good luck with that in Britney's case!) >>>>> >>>>> I think that it's important that we champion standard approaches to >>>>> our records while remaining flexible. Otherwise, future generations >>>>> (or even our immediate families) will be confused, not to mention >>>>> professional genealogists. >>>>> >>>>> tain >> > > > |
From: Gerald B. <ger...@gm...> - 2009-11-05 14:42:11
|
Interesting (though confusing, at least to me) approach. I opt for something simpler and a tad more conventional: 1. A source is a document of some sort (book, newspaper, death certificate, whatever) identified by name, author, publisher, volume, page number etc. 2. A repository is something with an address that I can go to, to see the source. That could be a civic address for the bricks-and-mortar world (like my house, where my family bible is) or a URL for a website. For special collections like the ones you mention, I would make them repositories in their own right, with the individual documents housed there. The address of a repository can be easily changed. In fact, you can have a list of address with dates to show the repository's movements in time. Very handy! Part of the reason for the approach I use (other than preserving my own sanity!) is for the (un)lucky researcher who inherits my work. For me at least, sticking to convention means that amateur and professional genealogists can easily find the sources without asking "I wonder what he meant by...?" Overall, I think that consistency is key. Choose a method for organizing your work and stick to it! One is certain: however you want to organize your records in gramps, it is accommodating. On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:10 AM, doug <do...@o2...> wrote: > If had several books, I'd treat them as sources, same as you. > > I would treat an album as an Album repository, an archive as an > Archive repository, and a collection as a Collection repository, > taking repositories to be "receptacles" that happen to be housed in some > place but are not synonymous with that place. > To give a few examples, the Royal Harwich Yacht Club Archive is a > collection of documents housed in the University Library of Cambridge, > not an integral part of that Library, but on loan. It could be required > to be returned to its owners at some time. The Haddon Collection is an > ethnographic collection housed in the Museum of Archaeology and > Ethnology of Cambridge; but it could in principle be transferred to the > Pitt-Rivers Museum in Oxford. The Sutton Hoo collection is an assembly > of finds housed in the British Museum. If some people had their way, the > finds would go back to the Sutton Hoo Museum at the site where they were > excavated. > > If I had a large number of important books - I don't - I might > consider treating them as the "DRB library" and eventually bequeath it > to a grateful nation, stipulating that the individual books should be > labelled "DRB Library", and identified in the Library's General > Catalogue, maybe kept together in a separate room. My heirs would > reserve the right to remove the library if they became dissatisfied with > the way it was being maintained. > > > Things do get a bit "metaphysical" when the object is difficult to > classify. Say something containing a heterogeneous assembly of > "documents": I think you would classify anything between two covers as a > 'book' and treat it as a single Source. I think Benny would probably > define several Sources, corresponding to the different components of the > assembly, if I understand him correctly. I would do the same, but if the > object itself were something like a loose-leaf file I might also define > that as an "Album" repository and attribute the Sources to that Repository. > > > Doug > > > > > > > > Gerald Britton wrote: >> >> I'm still curious to know what you would do if you had several books >> in your possession. Would you class each as a repository? But then >> that would mean changing all their addresses the next time you move >> (sounds tedious to me!) OTOH if your home was the repository, you'd >> only have one address to change. So, to fit your requirements >> (happily!) into the standard model, you'd have something like: >> >> Source: Family Bible, (Pub and Sons, NY, 1811), p. 12345, Doug's Home >> (2009) >> Source: Father's album, (no publisher), p. 456, Doug's Home (2009) >> >> Repository: Doug's Home, 1 Main St., Toadsuck, Texas, USA >> >> Does that make any sense? >> >> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:11 AM, doug <do...@o2...> wrote: >>> >>> Gerald, >>> Sorry, I've just noticed our postings haven't been going to the list - my >>> fault. >>> >>> I think the discussion has reached a point where our differences are >>> becoming more metaphysical than substantial. >>> >>> I do agree the standard model is the one to encourage. >>> Only for uncommon occasions where the particular situation fits unhappily >>> in >>> the standard model, do other Gramps options offer a more satisfactory way >>> of >>> dealing with it. >>> >>> Doug >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Gerald Britton wrote: >>>> >>>> Well I would argue that your home, at your address, is the repository >>>> where you father's book can be found. I do think that that would be >>>> the standard model which we should encourage. Of course you are free >>>> to arrange your data as you feel is most convenient for your famy >>>> history. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11/1/09, doug <do...@o2...> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> You describe the common situation. >>>>> However Gramps offers one the options of at least three types of >>>>> standard repository which are *not* places but 'receptacles' of records >>>>> (that will be found at some place). >>>>> >>>>> In my original response to the gramps-user who started this thread, I >>>>> suggested his father's book might perhaps contain a collection of >>>>> material besides just text. I had in mind something like a loose-leaf >>>>> book, which could equally well be described as an album. >>>>> >>>>> 'My Father's Book', of Type 'Album' and with my address, would then be >>>>> a perfectly regular Gramps Repository >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Doug >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gerald Britton wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> A repository is more than "just an address." It is some establishment >>>>>> (e.g library, archive, your home, Google books) that _may_ have an >>>>>> address (and/or a web site), but is at least identifiable as a place >>>>>> to go to find the source. That's why my "Family Bible" is at the >>>>>> repository "Home of Gerald Britton." Whether I move or not, the >>>>>> repository stays the same, though its address may change. >>>>>> >>>>>> I thought it might be helpful to paraphrase a family bible entry from >>>>>> "Cite Your Sources," which is a standard we would do well to follow: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Family bible record of James Spears of Kentwood, LA, USA. The Holy >>>>>> Bible (New York, Zondervan, 1994), p. ii, owner (2009) Britney >>>>>> Spears, 1 Rodeo Drive, Los Angeles CA. >>>>>> >>>>>> The first part, up to "owner" is the source record. The second part >>>>>> describes the repository, which is where the bible was when we >>>>>> examined it. Britney may move (probably will!) but we know where the >>>>>> bible was in 2009 and know where to begin (call her up!) if we want to >>>>>> examine the source in person (good luck with that in Britney's case!) >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that it's important that we champion standard approaches to >>>>>> our records while remaining flexible. Otherwise, future generations >>>>>> (or even our immediate families) will be confused, not to mention >>>>>> professional genealogists. >>>>>> >>>>>> tain >>> >> >> >> > > > > > > -- Gerald Britton |