On May 27, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Enno Borgsteede <ennoborg@gmail.com> wrote:

Gents,

We should display the fields necessary in the editors, and only fields that are needed for the source type. If "Author", "Abbreviation" or "Pub Info" are not needed, we shouldn't display them.  Likewise for "Date" and "Volume/Page" for citations.
I have a problem with this. That's because in my experience the idea that source type can define needed fields is not supported by reality. Proof is that results of the same type, say some civil birth/marriage or death record found on our national Wie Was Wie site, do not only depend on the type B/M/D, but also on the data provider, that is the software used by the local (mostly provincial) archive that supplies the data to the national site. Moreover, the fields available on the archives own site, may be different from the aggregated ones available on mentioned national site.

Adapting EE types to the above, and this is just for The Netherlands, is a hell of a job, I think, and if that leads to say a 1000 types for the whole world, which is very likely, when you want to cover sites all over the world, is just crazy.

I have RootsMagic here, which I acquired to connect to the FS tree, but when I try to add a source in that, the choice of templates simply scares me away.

EE's templates are very much directed at the US-based researcher. While the necessary *content* of all citations is 
the same (title, creator, date, publisher or repository information, provenance if not an official record, etc.), formats 
will differ by locale: I'd be surprised indeed to learn that Dutch genealogy journals use EE -- or even Chicago Manual
of Style -- formatted citations.

Electronic archives are another matter, because they are very uneven in providing the actual source information needed
to properly evaluate the source. 

Just using the EE template without having the explanatory material that goes along with it can be a bit confusing. This is compounded by the fact that templates in programs like Roots Magic  are based on the examples that Mills provides as 
front-matter to each section and republishes in her "Quick Sheets". They're *examples*, intended to be modified as 
necessary by someone who's read and understands the book. The "Quick Sheets" are intended for you to bring with 
you to the library or repository so that you can make sure that you get a good citation as you take your research notes.
Basing a data-entry template on them without allowing for some flexibility promotes neither usability nor collecting good
citations.

Regards,
John Ralls