From: doug <do...@o2...> - 2009-11-06 07:13:53
|
Now that you clarify how you treat special repositories, I doubt anybody will see any practical differences in Gramps reports of our citations (notwithstanding the different "philosophies"). Long live Gramps! Doug Gerald wrote: 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 > > > ><snip> Gerald Britton |