From: Tim L. <guy...@gm...> - 2011-12-02 18:04:48
|
On 29 Nov 2011, at 06:53, Jérôme wrote: > Hi, > > I was a little bit stucked by the new source/citation handling! > For GeneWeb, I looked at libgedcom, but gedcom file format can fill > some data on citation fields, GeneWeb cannot. Otherwise, export to > GeneWeb ignore sources on person/family/events (3.2.x, 3.3.x), I > kept this limitation for the citation support/migration. Sources > import with this file format is full/complete! > > For this migration/support, Tim pointed out that method is modified: > we do not set an object any more when we add a source, but add > something like a relation with source.handle and commit it to the > database. > > Maybe to add a pseudo set_source() somewhere into gen.lib, will make > the code more 'direct'? Yes, it is indirectly related to > set_citation_list(), but only gedcom file format provides data on > citation (inherited by gedcom), ie. we need to generate an empty > citation for adding source during import on some file formats. > I guess this might be the same way on plugins (API, reports, tools, > gramplets, views, simple access, etc ...) > > 'gen.lib.citation.py' is equivalent to current 'gen.lib.src.py' > but maybe a quick access to something like this citation itself is > maybe missing? Could be an enhancement for gen.lib: a way to fill > citation_list with only one empty citation, then to fill/set > previous source fields? > > Note, to merge some 'empty' citations, makes my data 'more compact'! > ie. it is like cleaning all our empty sourceref (no data). > This is great for users but also for our databases. :) > > Minor changes which could be also merged is maybe the focus set for > some fields on Editors and minor improvements for accessibility (ATK > objects, tooltips, shortcuts, etc ...), but very cosmetic on the > 'merge into trunk' process. > > > Thanks! > Jérôme Jérôme, I think you are suggesting some convenience functions that would deal with the situation where a citation was empty. I had not included such functions, for several reasons: (1) There are probably not that many situations where there is no opportunity to have data in a citation. True, this might apply to GeneWeb, and it certainly applies to CSV, but I think that in most other cases there is at least the possibility to have information in the citation. (2) I tend to think that convenience functions that hide part of the functionality can make maintenance more complicated rather than simpler. You need to check what the convenience function is actually doing, and then check what the underlying code is doing. Of course, if that function is used a lot, then it may make things simpler, but if it is very little used, and only replaces a small amount of code, it may be more trouble than it is worth. (3) It is not obvious how the functions should work. If there are already citations attached to the object, how should these be treated? etc. Maybe one of them already points to the source, with or without data on the citation. I suggest that it is possible that one would want to control the processing in such cases. (4) The code is not very much changed from the existing code. The Citation primary object corresponds pretty closely to the SourceRef secondary object. You create the object, and set_reference_handle() to point to the Source object. There is a difference that you than have to do a db.add_citation(citation, transaction). You then do an obj.add_citation(citation_handle) instead of an obj.add_source_reference(sourcerefobj) to add the SourceRef/Citation to the object. (5) As far as data access is concerned, you do obj.get_citation_list() instead of obj.get_source_references() to get a list of Citation handles/SourceRefs respectively. With the citation, you then need to do a db.get_citation_from_handle(citation_handle). Having got the object, you do get_reference_handle() to get the source object handle. (By the way, note that the names of the functions and the return values are mostly chosen to match the way notes are attached to objects, so obj.add_citation(citation_handle) corresponds with add_note, and obj.get_citation_list() corresponds with get_note_list() - both returning handles). I am glad you appreciate the merits of merging the 'empty' citations. The possibility to merge citations is an important benefit of the change. |
From: jerome <rom...@ya...> - 2011-12-02 19:46:04
|
Tim, > I think you are suggesting some convenience functions that > would deal > with the situation where a citation was empty. I had not > included No problem for me if there is no function like that. What is strange was to use citation through source, but it is the design and it was already present on source reference. > (1) There are probably not that many situations where there > is no > opportunity to have data in a citation. True, this might > apply to > GeneWeb, and it certainly applies to CSV, but I think that > in most > other cases there is at least the possibility to have > information in > the citation. +1 on Import only > (2) I tend to think that convenience functions that hide > part of the > functionality can make maintenance more complicated rather > than simpler. gen.lib should be the main API, is there any limitation? We do not need to replace "add citation", but a "get/set source" could be useful? I do not know DB levels or advanced APIs, so forgive me if I cannot provide the good description/wording. It is like this post on blog: http://gramps-project.org/2010/01/alternative-interfaces/ I like the flat database where I can select what I need with few lines : simple basic! Hierarchical/relational DB mixture or iteration are concepts, for me, so you do not need to match all my first impressions about GEPS023... The current code is good enough! :) > I am glad you appreciate the merits of merging the 'empty' > citations. > The possibility to merge citations is an important benefit > of the > change. Yes, it looks like a good cleanup for the base and our genealogical data! And I was not able to keep around 9000 citations... (900 after merging) Note, I suppose there is one or two places where we need to take care with citations merging: * Name object * Attribut object * (LDS object) PS: it seems that most US programs aim to provide some advanced interface for citations support: http://bettergedcom.wikispaces.com/Software+Citations http://bettergedcom.wikispaces.com/About+Citations Thank you. Jérôme --- En date de : Ven 2.12.11, Tim Lyons <guy...@gm...> a écrit : > De: Tim Lyons <guy...@gm...> > Objet: [Gramps-devel] GEPS023 with no data in the citation > À: "Gramps Development List" <gra...@li...> > Date: Vendredi 2 décembre 2011, 19h04 > On 29 Nov 2011, at 06:53, Jérôme > wrote: > > Jérôme, > > I think you are suggesting some convenience functions that > would deal > with the situation where a citation was empty. I had not > included such > functions, for several reasons: > > (1) There are probably not that many situations where there > is no > opportunity to have data in a citation. True, this might > apply to > GeneWeb, and it certainly applies to CSV, but I think that > in most > other cases there is at least the possibility to have > information in > the citation. > > (2) I tend to think that convenience functions that hide > part of the > functionality can make maintenance more complicated rather > than > simpler. You need to check what the convenience function is > actually > doing, and then check what the underlying code is doing. Of > course, if > that function is used a lot, then it may make things > simpler, but if > it is very little used, and only replaces a small amount of > code, it > may be more trouble than it is worth. > > (3) It is not obvious how the functions should work. If > there are > already citations attached to the object, how should these > be treated? > etc. Maybe one of them already points to the source, with > or without > data on the citation. I suggest that it is possible that > one would > want to control the processing in such cases. > > (4) The code is not very much changed from the existing > code. The > Citation primary object corresponds pretty closely to the > SourceRef > secondary object. You create the object, and > set_reference_handle() to > point to the Source object. There is a difference that you > than have > to do a db.add_citation(citation, transaction). You then do > an > obj.add_citation(citation_handle) instead of an > obj.add_source_reference(sourcerefobj) to add the > SourceRef/Citation > to the object. > > (5) As far as data access is concerned, you do > obj.get_citation_list() > instead of obj.get_source_references() to get a list of > Citation > handles/SourceRefs respectively. With the citation, you > then need to > do a db.get_citation_from_handle(citation_handle). Having > got the > object, you do get_reference_handle() to get the source > object handle. > > (By the way, note that the names of the functions and the > return > values are mostly chosen to match the way notes are > attached to > objects, so obj.add_citation(citation_handle) corresponds > with > add_note, and obj.get_citation_list() corresponds with > get_note_list() > - both returning handles). > > > I am glad you appreciate the merits of merging the 'empty' > citations. > The possibility to merge citations is an important benefit > of the > change. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > All the data continuously generated in your IT > infrastructure > contains a definitive record of customers, application > performance, > security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk > takes this > data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-devel mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel > |
From: jerome <rom...@ya...> - 2011-12-04 07:49:32
|
Hi Tim. What should be the citation if the *new* source is an individual? ie. we cannot attach/add/create a source like this on an object (person, family, event, attribute, address, lds, etc, ...) without a citation! Is it not possible to create the citation (id) *and* the source (id) together into source citation editor? Otherwise, maybe a cosmetic issue on this editor: there is no focus on a field! To make/set the most important fields as default could be useful for edition. ie. seizure without using the mouse for focusing. See: http://www.gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=5351 Regards. Jérôme --- En date de : Ven 2.12.11, Tim Lyons <guy...@gm...> a écrit : > De: Tim Lyons <guy...@gm...> > Objet: [Gramps-devel] GEPS023 with no data in the citation > À: "Gramps Development List" <gra...@li...> > Date: Vendredi 2 décembre 2011, 19h04 > On 29 Nov 2011, at 06:53, Jérôme > wrote: > > > Jérôme, > > I think you are suggesting some convenience functions that > would deal > with the situation where a citation was empty. I had not > included such > functions, for several reasons: > > (1) There are probably not that many situations where there > is no > opportunity to have data in a citation. True, this might > apply to > GeneWeb, and it certainly applies to CSV, but I think that > in most > other cases there is at least the possibility to have > information in > the citation. > > (2) I tend to think that convenience functions that hide > part of the > functionality can make maintenance more complicated rather > than > simpler. You need to check what the convenience function is > actually > doing, and then check what the underlying code is doing. Of > course, if > that function is used a lot, then it may make things > simpler, but if > it is very little used, and only replaces a small amount of > code, it > may be more trouble than it is worth. > > (3) It is not obvious how the functions should work. If > there are > already citations attached to the object, how should these > be treated? > etc. Maybe one of them already points to the source, with > or without > data on the citation. I suggest that it is possible that > one would > want to control the processing in such cases. > > (4) The code is not very much changed from the existing > code. The > Citation primary object corresponds pretty closely to the > SourceRef > secondary object. You create the object, and > set_reference_handle() to > point to the Source object. There is a difference that you > than have > to do a db.add_citation(citation, transaction). You then do > an > obj.add_citation(citation_handle) instead of an > obj.add_source_reference(sourcerefobj) to add the > SourceRef/Citation > to the object. > > (5) As far as data access is concerned, you do > obj.get_citation_list() > instead of obj.get_source_references() to get a list of > Citation > handles/SourceRefs respectively. With the citation, you > then need to > do a db.get_citation_from_handle(citation_handle). Having > got the > object, you do get_reference_handle() to get the source > object handle. > > (By the way, note that the names of the functions and the > return > values are mostly chosen to match the way notes are > attached to > objects, so obj.add_citation(citation_handle) corresponds > with > add_note, and obj.get_citation_list() corresponds with > get_note_list() > - both returning handles). > > > I am glad you appreciate the merits of merging the 'empty' > citations. > The possibility to merge citations is an important benefit > of the > change. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > All the data continuously generated in your IT > infrastructure > contains a definitive record of customers, application > performance, > security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk > takes this > data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-devel mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel > |
From: Jérôme <rom...@ya...> - 2011-12-04 11:22:26
|
Same issue with a web site as source. What should be the citation? There is maybe one solution: to generate the citation handle/id and to set/record the confidence_level, even it is the default one! A record of a citation of a source of information. In GEDCOM this is called a SOURCE_CITATION. The data provided in the <<SOURCE_CITATION>> structure is source-related information specific to the data being cited. """ CONF_VERY_HIGH = 4 CONF_HIGH = 3 CONF_NORMAL = 2 CONF_LOW = 1 CONF_VERY_LOW = 0 def __init__(self): """Create a new Citation instance.""" PrimaryObject.__init__(self) MediaBase.__init__(self) # 7 NoteBase.__init__(self) # 6 DateBase.__init__(self) # 2 self.source_handle = None # 5 self.page = "" # 3 self.confidence = Citation.CONF_NORMAL # 4 gen/lib/citation.py self.type_mon = MonitoredMenu( self.glade.get_object('confidence'), self.obj.set_confidence_level, self.obj.get_confidence_level, [ (_('Very Low'), gen.lib.Citation.CONF_VERY_LOW), (_('Low'), gen.lib.Citation.CONF_LOW), (_('Normal'), gen.lib.Citation.CONF_NORMAL), (_('High'), gen.lib.Citation.CONF_HIGH), (_('Very High'), gen.lib.Citation.CONF_VERY_HIGH)], self.db.readonly) gui/editors/editcitation.py Jérôme jerome a écrit : > Hi Tim. > > > What should be the citation if the *new* source is an individual? > ie. we cannot attach/add/create a source like this on an object (person, family, event, attribute, address, lds, etc, ...) without a citation! > > Is it not possible to create the citation (id) *and* the source (id) together into source citation editor? > > Otherwise, maybe a cosmetic issue on this editor: there is no focus on a field! To make/set the most important fields as default could be useful for edition. ie. seizure without using the mouse for focusing. > See: http://www.gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=5351 > > > Regards. > Jérôme > > --- En date de : Ven 2.12.11, Tim Lyons <guy...@gm...> a écrit : > >> De: Tim Lyons <guy...@gm...> >> Objet: [Gramps-devel] GEPS023 with no data in the citation >> À: "Gramps Development List" <gra...@li...> >> Date: Vendredi 2 décembre 2011, 19h04 >> On 29 Nov 2011, at 06:53, Jérôme >> wrote: >> >> >> Jérôme, >> >> I think you are suggesting some convenience functions that >> would deal >> with the situation where a citation was empty. I had not >> included such >> functions, for several reasons: >> >> (1) There are probably not that many situations where there >> is no >> opportunity to have data in a citation. True, this might >> apply to >> GeneWeb, and it certainly applies to CSV, but I think that >> in most >> other cases there is at least the possibility to have >> information in >> the citation. >> >> (2) I tend to think that convenience functions that hide >> part of the >> functionality can make maintenance more complicated rather >> than >> simpler. You need to check what the convenience function is >> actually >> doing, and then check what the underlying code is doing. Of >> course, if >> that function is used a lot, then it may make things >> simpler, but if >> it is very little used, and only replaces a small amount of >> code, it >> may be more trouble than it is worth. >> >> (3) It is not obvious how the functions should work. If >> there are >> already citations attached to the object, how should these >> be treated? >> etc. Maybe one of them already points to the source, with >> or without >> data on the citation. I suggest that it is possible that >> one would >> want to control the processing in such cases. >> >> (4) The code is not very much changed from the existing >> code. The >> Citation primary object corresponds pretty closely to the >> SourceRef >> secondary object. You create the object, and >> set_reference_handle() to >> point to the Source object. There is a difference that you >> than have >> to do a db.add_citation(citation, transaction). You then do >> an >> obj.add_citation(citation_handle) instead of an >> obj.add_source_reference(sourcerefobj) to add the >> SourceRef/Citation >> to the object. >> >> (5) As far as data access is concerned, you do >> obj.get_citation_list() >> instead of obj.get_source_references() to get a list of >> Citation >> handles/SourceRefs respectively. With the citation, you >> then need to >> do a db.get_citation_from_handle(citation_handle). Having >> got the >> object, you do get_reference_handle() to get the source >> object handle. >> >> (By the way, note that the names of the functions and the >> return >> values are mostly chosen to match the way notes are >> attached to >> objects, so obj.add_citation(citation_handle) corresponds >> with >> add_note, and obj.get_citation_list() corresponds with >> get_note_list() >> - both returning handles). >> >> >> I am glad you appreciate the merits of merging the 'empty' >> citations. >> The possibility to merge citations is an important benefit >> of the >> change. >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> All the data continuously generated in your IT >> infrastructure >> contains a definitive record of customers, application >> performance, >> security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk >> takes this >> data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d >> _______________________________________________ >> Gramps-devel mailing list >> Gra...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure > contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, > security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this > data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-devel mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel > |
From: Tim L. <guy...@gm...> - 2011-12-04 16:51:06
|
See comments about empty citations on previous message. Personally, for a website, I would record the source as the overall site (e.g. wikipedia), and in the citation, I would record the actual URL in the Volume/Page, and I would record the date I retrieved the information in the Date field of the citation. I suppose that if there was only one page in a site that i was interested in, I might record the source as the internet, and the page as the URL. On 4 Dec 2011, at 11:22, Jérôme wrote: > Same issue with a web site as source. > What should be the citation? > > There is maybe one solution: to generate the citation handle/id and > to set/record the confidence_level, even it is the default one! As I said, it should be possible to create an empty citation, but this is not possible at present - a problem which I will fix soon. |
From: Tim L. <guy...@gm...> - 2011-12-04 16:45:51
|
On 4 Dec 2011, at 07:49, jerome wrote: > Hi Tim. > > > What should be the citation if the *new* source is an individual? > ie. we cannot attach/add/create a source like this on an object > (person, family, event, attribute, address, lds, etc, ...) without a > citation! There is a small mistake in editcitation which prevents the saving of an empty citation. This is noted in the known issues, and also there s a FIXME in the code. I will fix this as soon as I have completed the merge into trunk, but I want to make sure that the merge is the one that has been tested. > Is it not possible to create the citation (id) *and* the source (id) > together into source citation editor? The citation editor always deals with both a source and a citation, creating them if they do not exist. There always has to be a citation, even if it is empty, just as there always had to be a SourceRef. > Otherwise, maybe a cosmetic issue on this editor: there is no focus > on a field! To make/set the most important fields as default could > be useful for edition. ie. seizure without using the mouse for > focusing. > See: http://www.gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=5351 Yes, will fix that too. > > > Regards. > Jérôme > > --- En date de : Ven 2.12.11, Tim Lyons <guy...@gm...> a > écrit : > >> De: Tim Lyons <guy...@gm...> >> Objet: [Gramps-devel] GEPS023 with no data in the citation >> À: "Gramps Development List" <gra...@li...> >> Date: Vendredi 2 décembre 2011, 19h04 >> On 29 Nov 2011, at 06:53, Jérôme >> wrote: >> >> >> Jérôme, >> >> I think you are suggesting some convenience functions that >> would deal >> with the situation where a citation was empty. I had not >> included such >> functions, for several reasons: >> >> (1) There are probably not that many situations where there >> is no >> opportunity to have data in a citation. True, this might >> apply to >> GeneWeb, and it certainly applies to CSV, but I think that >> in most >> other cases there is at least the possibility to have >> information in >> the citation. >> >> (2) I tend to think that convenience functions that hide >> part of the >> functionality can make maintenance more complicated rather >> than >> simpler. You need to check what the convenience function is >> actually >> doing, and then check what the underlying code is doing. Of >> course, if >> that function is used a lot, then it may make things >> simpler, but if >> it is very little used, and only replaces a small amount of >> code, it >> may be more trouble than it is worth. >> >> (3) It is not obvious how the functions should work. If >> there are >> already citations attached to the object, how should these >> be treated? >> etc. Maybe one of them already points to the source, with >> or without >> data on the citation. I suggest that it is possible that >> one would >> want to control the processing in such cases. >> >> (4) The code is not very much changed from the existing >> code. The >> Citation primary object corresponds pretty closely to the >> SourceRef >> secondary object. You create the object, and >> set_reference_handle() to >> point to the Source object. There is a difference that you >> than have >> to do a db.add_citation(citation, transaction). You then do >> an >> obj.add_citation(citation_handle) instead of an >> obj.add_source_reference(sourcerefobj) to add the >> SourceRef/Citation >> to the object. >> >> (5) As far as data access is concerned, you do >> obj.get_citation_list() >> instead of obj.get_source_references() to get a list of >> Citation >> handles/SourceRefs respectively. With the citation, you >> then need to >> do a db.get_citation_from_handle(citation_handle). Having >> got the >> object, you do get_reference_handle() to get the source >> object handle. >> >> (By the way, note that the names of the functions and the >> return >> values are mostly chosen to match the way notes are >> attached to >> objects, so obj.add_citation(citation_handle) corresponds >> with >> add_note, and obj.get_citation_list() corresponds with >> get_note_list() >> - both returning handles). >> >> >> I am glad you appreciate the merits of merging the 'empty' >> citations. >> The possibility to merge citations is an important benefit >> of the >> change. >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> All the data continuously generated in your IT >> infrastructure >> contains a definitive record of customers, application >> performance, >> security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk >> takes this >> data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d >> _______________________________________________ >> Gramps-devel mailing list >> Gra...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel >> |
From: John R. <jr...@ce...> - 2011-12-04 17:37:06
|
On Dec 4, 2011, at 3:22 AM, Jérôme wrote: > Same issue with a web site as source. > What should be the citation? > > jerome a écrit : >> Hi Tim. >> >> >> What should be the citation if the *new* source is an individual? >> ie. we cannot attach/add/create a source like this on an object (person, family, event, attribute, address, lds, etc, ...) without a citation! ISTM these are questions about GEPS 18, not GEPS 23. Unless someone is going to take on redoing the way Gramps handles sources to provide specific fields, you're pretty much required to work out for yourself a consistent system for recording all flavors of citations (the dictionary meaning, not the Gramps object) into the few fields available in Gramps. You might find "Evidence Explained" helpful in designing your system. ISTR that in one of the threads referenced on GEPS 18 that Benny said that Gramps isn't a bibliography manager. That implies that if you're planning to create footnoted reports you're well advised to get and use one. Regards, John Ralls |
From: Jérôme <rom...@ya...> - 2011-12-05 07:34:43
|
> There is a small mistake in editcitation which prevents the saving of an > empty citation. This is noted in the known issues, and also there s a > FIXME in the code. I will fix this as soon as I have completed the merge > into trunk, but I want to make sure that the merge is the one that has > been tested. OK, sorry. Note, some days ago I reported a minor issue on current merge dialogs (context details for events)[1]. Not directly related, but change should be on the same files (merge). I will not be connected to the web during this week and I do not know what should be the right choice for the fix[1], but if time, one could make the change on trunk (and 3.3.x). I only reported it, to avoid conflicts on SVN commit. [1] http://www.gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=5410 Thanks. Jérôme Tim Lyons a écrit : > > On 4 Dec 2011, at 07:49, jerome wrote: > >> Hi Tim. >> >> >> What should be the citation if the *new* source is an individual? >> ie. we cannot attach/add/create a source like this on an object >> (person, family, event, attribute, address, lds, etc, ...) without a >> citation! > > There is a small mistake in editcitation which prevents the saving of an > empty citation. This is noted in the known issues, and also there s a > FIXME in the code. I will fix this as soon as I have completed the merge > into trunk, but I want to make sure that the merge is the one that has > been tested. > >> Is it not possible to create the citation (id) *and* the source (id) >> together into source citation editor? > > The citation editor always deals with both a source and a citation, > creating them if they do not exist. There always has to be a citation, > even if it is empty, just as there always had to be a SourceRef. > >> Otherwise, maybe a cosmetic issue on this editor: there is no focus on >> a field! To make/set the most important fields as default could be >> useful for edition. ie. seizure without using the mouse for focusing. >> See: http://www.gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=5351 > > Yes, will fix that too. > >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> All the data continuously generated in your IT >>> infrastructure >>> contains a definitive record of customers, application >>> performance, >>> security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk >>> takes this >>> data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gramps-devel mailing list >>> Gra...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel >>> > > |
From: Tim L. <guy...@gm...> - 2011-12-05 14:37:35
|
On 5 Dec 2011, at 07:34, Jérôme wrote: >> There is a small mistake in editcitation which prevents the saving >> of an empty citation. This is noted in the known issues, and also >> there s a FIXME in the code. I will fix this as soon as I have >> completed the merge into trunk, but I want to make sure that the >> merge is the one that has been tested. > > OK, sorry. I have now fixed the problem with saving an empty citation (Rev 18549) in trunk. > > Note, some days ago I reported a minor issue on current merge > dialogs (context details for events)[1]. > > Not directly related, but change should be on the same files (merge). > I will not be connected to the web during this week and I do not > know what should be the right choice for the fix[1], but if time, > one could make the change on trunk (and 3.3.x). > > I only reported it, to avoid conflicts on SVN commit. > > [1] http://www.gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=5410 When I was talking about merge, I was talking about 'svn merge' prior to commiting the changes for GEPS023 into trunk. I was not talking about the merge dialog in Gramps. I will be busy making sure everything is right with GEPS023, so don't expect I will have much time to attend to the bug you mention. |
From: Jérôme <rom...@ya...> - 2011-12-05 08:29:30
|
> ISTR that in one of the threads referenced on GEPS 18 that Benny said that Gramps isn't a bibliography manager. That implies that if you're planning to create footnoted reports you're well advised to get and use one. +1 I also suppose that footnote should not be stored as genealogical data! It seems that others programs often use templates http://bettergedcom.wikispaces.com/Software+Citations Gramps already support endnotes on some textual reports (individual, detailed) and some programs are designed to manage bibliographies, like CherryTree: http://www.giuspen.com/cherrytree/ which integrates a zotero support http://www.zotero.org/ What I am trying to say is that we should be able to import specific tables (citations, sources, notes, media) then to attach some of these objects on our data. ie. the ability to share/attach some objects makes Gramps more flexible than template based models. In the past, I was looking at a places database, but this could be a nightmare for maintenance and was maybe too much formated... Note, web sites in Holland or France are using a different models than US web sites... We have access to sources, each repository is storing a copy of this source and every one has its own model... The source itself is the same but footnotes could be infinite!!! UK seems to also have an other citation usage! http://www.sceya.com.au/genealogy/globalculture.htm Using source model and search assistant could be resumed on GEPS015! http://www.gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=GEPS_015:_Repository_Research_Support Sure, to handle 'Evidence style sources' is also related to GEPS023, but we can imagine that the data/key (data item) could be the place where we import every custom fields/data ??? ie. a wrapper/parser on import should be already able to do that, no ? No relation, single table (source or citation). Tagging could be an other help on some objects. ie. to generate our own groups of genealogical data. PS: 'Ancestry.fr' has moved to luxembourg (less taxes...), and also cause of the french decentralized model, which is not unique/simple ! http://geneinfos.typepad.fr/geneinfos/2011/03/ancestry-gere-desormais-son-site-depuis-le-luxembourg.html Jérôme John Ralls a écrit : > On Dec 4, 2011, at 3:22 AM, Jérôme wrote: > >> Same issue with a web site as source. >> What should be the citation? >> >> jerome a écrit : >>> Hi Tim. >>> >>> >>> What should be the citation if the *new* source is an individual? >>> ie. we cannot attach/add/create a source like this on an object (person, family, event, attribute, address, lds, etc, ...) without a citation! > > ISTM these are questions about GEPS 18, not GEPS 23. Unless someone is going to take on redoing the way Gramps handles sources to provide specific fields, you're pretty much required to work out for yourself a consistent system for recording all flavors of citations (the dictionary meaning, not the Gramps object) into the few fields available in Gramps. You might find "Evidence Explained" helpful in designing your system. > > ISTR that in one of the threads referenced on GEPS 18 that Benny said that Gramps isn't a bibliography manager. That implies that if you're planning to create footnoted reports you're well advised to get and use one. > > Regards, > John Ralls > > > |
From: John R. <jr...@ce...> - 2011-12-05 15:29:52
|
On Dec 5, 2011, at 12:29 AM, Jérôme wrote: >> ISTR that in one of the threads referenced on GEPS 18 that Benny said that Gramps isn't a bibliography manager. That implies that if you're planning to create footnoted reports you're well advised to get and use one. > > +1 > I also suppose that footnote should not be stored as genealogical data! > > It seems that others programs often use templates > http://bettergedcom.wikispaces.com/Software+Citations > > Gramps already support endnotes on some textual reports (individual, detailed) and some programs are designed to manage bibliographies, like CherryTree: http://www.giuspen.com/cherrytree/ which integrates a zotero support http://www.zotero.org/ > > What I am trying to say is that we should be able to import specific tables (citations, sources, notes, media) then to attach some of these objects on our data. ie. the ability to share/attach some objects makes Gramps more flexible than template based models. > > In the past, I was looking at a places database, but this could be a nightmare for maintenance and was maybe too much formated... > > Note, web sites in Holland or France are using a different models than US web sites... We have access to sources, each repository is storing a copy of this source and every one has its own model... The source itself is the same but footnotes could be infinite!!! UK seems to also have an other citation usage! http://www.sceya.com.au/genealogy/globalculture.htm > > Using source model and search assistant could be resumed on GEPS015! > http://www.gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=GEPS_015:_Repository_Research_Support > > Sure, to handle 'Evidence style sources' is also related to GEPS023, but we can imagine that the data/key (data item) could be the place where we import every custom fields/data ??? ie. a wrapper/parser on import should be already able to do that, no ? No relation, single table (source or citation). Tagging could be an other help on some objects. ie. to generate our own groups of genealogical data. > > > PS: 'Ancestry.fr' has moved to luxembourg (less taxes...), and also cause of the french decentralized model, which is not unique/simple ! > http://geneinfos.typepad.fr/geneinfos/2011/03/ancestry-gere-desormais-son-site-depuis-le-luxembourg.html > Yes, the better commercial genealogy programs do format footnotes on their reports. TMG is particularly noted for getting this right, though their source input is a bit tortured and Gramps's source management is better. Yes, each country has a different style guide. Mills's is the one for US (and probably Canadian, and maybe even British) genealogists, but I'd expect that countries which use other languages will have their own style guides. It would be helpful to anyone contemplating implementing GEPS 18 if some of our non-english users could add their countries' style guides to GEPS 18. Keep presentation and storage separate: Just because we present a form or template to the user to prompt her to get all of the relevant information into her source item doesn't mean that we have to store the data that way. The database layout should be designed around search and retrieval, not presentation to the user. Regards, John Ralls |