From: John R. <jr...@ce...> - 2013-05-27 23:24:12
|
On May 27, 2013, at 2:41 PM, Enno Borgsteede <enn...@gm...> wrote: > Benny, >> 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] > H'm, I guess that I will never use any template at all, but concentrate > on the fields instead. And here, I see a couple of weird things, which > may be partly caused by copy paste from that CSV. It looks like you're > referring to entry 73 here, and there I see less entries in the CSV than > quoted here. Yes, Benny combined the L and F entries. He's correct, and it's an example of how having the book is helpful (even though he doesn't), because the example text helps to explain what the fields mean: Listing: [CHURCH (AUTHOR)] [LOCATION] [RECORD SERIES] St. Lawrence Church (Oxhill, Warwickshire, England), Parish Registers, 1568-1840, [ITEM TYPE...] [WEBSITE TITLE] Digital Images, <i>St. Lawrence Church, Oxhill</i>, [URL (DIGITAL LOCATION)] [YEAR(S)] http://www.oxhill.org.uk/ChurchRegisters/Registers.htm : 2006 Full: [CHURCH (AUTHOR)] [LOCATION] 1. St. Lawrence Church, (Oxhill, Warwickshire, England), [RECORD BOOK ID (GENERIC...)] [PAGES] Banns of Marriage, 1754-1794, unnumbered p. 1, [ITEM OF INTEREST & DATE FOR UNPAGINATED ENTRY] [ITEM TYPE...] "Mr." Thomas Ward and Martha Rowley, 19 October 1574[sic], digital images, [WEBSITE TITLE] <i>St. Lawrence Church, Oxhill</i> [URL (DIGITAL LOCATION)] [ACCESS DATE] (http://www.oxhill.org.uk/ChurchRegisters/Registers.htm : accessed 20 September 2006) In the source listing she's giving as the record series the overall name of everything that's in that URL, while in the actual citation she's naming the actual section of the website that the record (doesn't actually) come from. > > Anyway, no matter the copy paste, I see that field are not normalized, > as there is a web site title and a URL, which IMO should be part of a > web site object. That's my IT hat speaking. Same for first and last > names from authors, location of a church, etc. So for me, EE is crap, > focused on presentation, not on the recording of the origin of evidence, > which is what I need. I don't really care about citation style at all, > but what I do care about is to record where I got the information, which > is why I do need proper fields, no 170 stinking templates from the USA, > none of which really fit my needs. That's your SQL hat speaking. Time to put it back in the closet and think NoSQLy. ;-) If these data are normalized they'd just have to be joined every time you wanted to use them. Yes, it would save a little space, but only at the cost of more complex queries and slower response. >> 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. >> > I agree. Item is a vague term, which I assume is something like a record > number, or ID, which is some short string, while dates can and should be > checked. > Maybe. Consider a thick record book with 50 or so entries per page and no page numbers, but each entry is dated (or the first entry for a date or on a page is dated and the rest have " or do. where the date would be). It might be tabular, with the next column being the groom's name in a marriage register, or if it's a clerk's record book it might say "Marriage return of Rev. So and so, joined groom, son of..." and you could use "date: groom" or "Rev. So and so on date" as your indicator. No, the date doesn't need to be checked, at least not for this field. It's just to help someone checking your source (maybe even you!) to find the exact record you're citing. Regards, John Ralls |