2013/5/27 Benny Malengier <benny.malengier@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
> 2013/5/27 Enno Borgsteede <ennoborg@gmail.com>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> Some things here.
> There is the original manuscript, which is a source.
> This was transferred to microfilm, which is another source.
> This was transferred to a database by some people, which is third source
> This was sold/given to people, who put it on websites, which are extra sources.
>
> In every step errors might have been made, and for a professional genealogist, it will be important to distinguish these on the source level.
>
> For a normal user, he might consider all of the above a single source, and put the link to the true form via repository (media type there has microfilm, ...).
>
> Gramps does not force a way of working normally.
>
> So, we have two ways of working here.
> 1/ normal user see birth record church, and does not distinguish between the site it is found on. He might add repositories. This user will have problems using templates for source, as his source of information, typically a website, might not have all, or the correct data for the original source.
> One could argue this user doesn't care too much either way, and will be happy with a generic entry like pub.info, ...
> 2/a professional user will distinguish between sources, so she is able to indicate what information comes from what place.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> Is this really true?  Is it USA/UK oriented? I did not try to check yet where a site like Wie is wie would fall under. I would hope there is a generic entry for this already present.


Looking into this. If you open the csv at trunk/data/evidencestyle, then entry 70 is Church Records.
Drilling down this can be Church Books (original), Image Copies and Derivatives.
So, for a typical Birth Record on Wie Was Wie site, I assume you would use
"Church Records, Image Copies, Digitized online. "
Gramps would then indicate that for a full reference, following fields can be used:

[CHURCH (AUTHOR)]
[LOCATION]
[RECORD SERIES]
[ITEM TYPE OR FORMAT]
[WEBSITE TITLE]
[URL (DIGITAL LOCATION)]
[YEAR(S)]
[RECORD BOOK ID (GENERIC LABEL)]
[PAGE(S)]
[ITEM OF INTEREST & DATE FOR UNPAGINATED ENTRY]
[ITEM TYPE OR FORMAT]
[WEBSITE TITLE]
[ACCESS DATE]


This seems ok to me. In current Gramps, you would give log date or item of interest, and if all goes good you might have added other things.

Problem for us here is that
[ITEM OF INTEREST & DATE FOR UNPAGINATED ENTRY]
is one entry. To give a nice date entry, we would need to split those up in two fields.

Benny