From: David L. <dav...@vi...> - 2013-06-16 08:58:22
|
I find it impossible to distinguish easily which respository I am using for a citation. For example, often depending on the date, an entry (citation) in a parish register (source) may come from Family Search, a transcription by a family history society or my own transcription from the physical archive (repositories) ... sometimes it is obvious which respository I've used but sometimes not. Can this be done in Gramps now? If not, does GEP018 help in this regard? If not, is there wider support for a feature request? David Lynch |
From: Enno B. <enn...@gm...> - 2013-06-16 14:03:07
|
Hi David, > I find it impossible to distinguish easily which respository I am > using for a citation. For example, often depending on the date, an > entry (citation) in a parish register (source) may come from Family > Search, a transcription by a family history society or my own > transcription from the physical archive (repositories) ... sometimes > it is obvious which respository I've used but sometimes not. H'm, as far as I'm concerned, the repository is where YOU got the data, so it should be as obvious as what you wrote above. Sometimes you get something from a FamilySearch index (transcription), sometimes from an image on the same site, and in both cases, you can cite FamilySearch as the repository, and show the difference between their transcription and your own by specifying the source type somewhere, like index or image. Same for the other examples, where you can specify the FH society database as the repoitory, or the physical archive, again depending on where YOU actually saw things. And since I assume that you know (record) where you see things, I don't quite understand the impossible here. For indexed data, you can specify the real source, which may be a film, or a real old artifact, as found in a 2nd indirect repository, noting that you didn't really see the latter. > Can this be done in Gramps now? I think, yes, by typing the right citation. See here for FS specific examples: https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Help:How_to_Cite_FamilySearch_Collections > If not, does GEP018 help in this regard? It may. The collection of templates is so large that I don't use them myself, but I've seen different templates for physical artifacts, things on microfilm, and indexed records. Currently there are no specific templates for FS or other sources with predefined repositories though. > If not, is there wider support for a feature request? Not from me, at the moment. regards, Enno |
From: Benny M. <ben...@gm...> - 2013-06-16 19:07:45
|
I would advise to only use repository for actually identical type of sources. When you consult a microfilm, and later actually also consult the actual record, it might be best to just add a new source, instead of of only adding a new repository. Same for online data. The reason is what you say: you want to know later on what you actually consulted. In GEP 18 I lean to above view. It would be possible to provide an override on the citation level, so as to distinguish on citation level what repository was used, but I'm afraid that is overly complicated. Eg: You consult an online website. According to GEP 18, you will be 'advised' by gramps to add an 'accessed on' value to your citation. And the citation will be formatted to correspond to an online source. This is very useful, as online data indeed changes fast sometimes. If you have the same source on microfilm, or consult actual reprinted book, you could fast fast make a new repository and leave that citation, however, good research would indicate you: 1/ make a new source 2/ now add as repository the new access method 3/ only those things you double check with the new access type (microfilm, book, another site, ...) obtain a new citation, now to the new source. I did not decide for myself yet if this is a problem or not. GEP 18 will degrade the use of repositories... I think casual users only have one repository anyway, and don't bother with whatever changes GEP 18 has. More professional users might use repository now as that is what they have, but I think they are probably just as likely to make different sources, exactly because they clearly want to distinguish data from an online source, from data from a church record book reprint. Any input on this is welcome, as it is one of things I struggle with for GEP 18 Benny 2013/6/16 Enno Borgsteede <enn...@gm...> > Hi David, > > I find it impossible to distinguish easily which respository I am > > using for a citation. For example, often depending on the date, an > > entry (citation) in a parish register (source) may come from Family > > Search, a transcription by a family history society or my own > > transcription from the physical archive (repositories) ... sometimes > > it is obvious which respository I've used but sometimes not. > H'm, as far as I'm concerned, the repository is where YOU got the data, > so it should be as obvious as what you wrote above. Sometimes you get > something from a FamilySearch index (transcription), sometimes from an > image on the same site, and in both cases, you can cite FamilySearch as > the repository, and show the difference between their transcription and > your own by specifying the source type somewhere, like index or image. > > Same for the other examples, where you can specify the FH society > database as the repoitory, or the physical archive, again depending on > where YOU actually saw things. And since I assume that you know (record) > where you see things, I don't quite understand the impossible here. > > For indexed data, you can specify the real source, which may be a film, > or a real old artifact, as found in a 2nd indirect repository, noting > that you didn't really see the latter. > > Can this be done in Gramps now? > I think, yes, by typing the right citation. See here for FS specific > examples: > > > https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Help:How_to_Cite_FamilySearch_Collections > > If not, does GEP018 help in this regard? > It may. The collection of templates is so large that I don't use them > myself, but I've seen different templates for physical artifacts, things > on microfilm, and indexed records. Currently there are no specific > templates for FS or other sources with predefined repositories though. > > If not, is there wider support for a feature request? > Not from me, at the moment. > > regards, > > Enno > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: > > Build for Windows Store. > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users > |