From: Frederico M. <fs...@gm...> - 2010-01-14 23:02:15
|
Hi, Just my 0.5€ on the issue 2010/1/14 Johan Vromans <jvr...@sq...>: > Gerald Britton <ger...@gm...> writes: > >> I think you are talking about sharing a source reference > > Yes. > >> which gramps cannot do. > > Ok... This is a common request, and one which I also did about a year ago. It is still popular, and there is no "right and wrong" here, but let me at least advance one example that works best without sharing a source reference. You have that "Baptize Registry Haarlem" (curiously I "stumbled" upon Haarlem about an hour ago while reading a book about the Eighty Years War, small world), a source, and that "Year 1824 number 45", a source reference. This is also what I do (there is also a "school of thought" that makes each "page" a separate source). That record contains information that substantiates several different events (say, baptism and birth of the individual, possibly marriage of the parents, name of the grandparents, etc). For this I use, as Gerald said, the Clipboard to *copy* (and not share) this source reference. Now, what I also do is to add a Source Citation in order to clearly show exactly how I derived the information from the source reference. From GEDCOM (emphasis mine): >The <<SOURCE_CITATION>> structure is placed *subordinate to the fact being cited*. It is >generally best if the source citation contains *only information specific to the fact being cited* and >then points to the more general description of the source, defined in a SOURCE_RECORD What this means is that (and this is an example, it depends a lot on the actual source) if I have a birth event for the father that can be taken from the source I will add something like "[...]In this year of 1756 [...] son of Mauricius Nassau, aged 23...[...]" as a Source Citation (which is a kind of Note) to the *source citation* field. This makes this specific source reference unique, since this citation is only relevant for this event, and no other. If source references were shared this wouldn't be possible. The above works rather well in my view, as shown for example on the output of the Narrative Web report. It as actually allowed me to correct bas assumptions since after a while I'm not sure exactly why I did calculate the date of a specific event, and if I made an error it will likely stay undiscovered for a longer time since I will tend to trust my original entry and avoid reading the whole source again just to check. Regards, Frederico |