Re: [Gramps-devel] GEP018 comments

[Nick H. <nic...@ho...>]

On 18/06/13 02:20, John Ralls wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2013, at 5:14 PM, Nick Hall <nic...@ho...> wrote:
>
>> On 17/06/13 21:31, John Ralls wrote:
>>> On Jun 17, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Nick Hall <nic...@ho...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Benny,
>>>>
>>>> This is valid and is definitely needed.
>>>>
>>>> Remember my example is the National Archives at Kew.  I was specifically
>>>> checking to see if the model works with archives containing unpublished
>>>> material.
>>>>
>>>> An example of a National Archives reference is "RAIL123/4567". This
>>>> might be a reference to some railway staff records.
>>>>
>>>> "RAIL123" would be a "Class".  "4567" is usually called "Piece". This
>>>> seems to correspond to the attribute "Item" or "Number".  In this case I
>>>> suppose "Number" is the most appropriate.  Splitting the attribute key
>>>> from the template field name works here.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that we don't really need to split the code.  It is the
>>>> reference you enter into the system when ordering a document.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we need a new attribute called "Reference" which can be linked
>>>> to the call-number?
>>>>
>>>> Looking at your current list of attributes, and that they are split from
>>>> template field names, I think we can work with a fixed list of attribute
>>>> keys as a GrampsType.
>>>>
>>>> However, I still believe that the user needs to be able to add and
>>>> remove (possibly not rename) templates.  I would strongly urge you to
>>>> consider moving the template definitions into an xml format or a plugin.
>>> Nick,
>>>
>>> Take a look at the 3 templates for manuscripts in EE Archives & Artifacts>Archived Material>Manuscripts*.
>>> Will those fit the bill at TNA?
>>>
>>> NARA (the US National Archives & Records Administration) supplies recommended citations.
>>> Do TNA have any sort of citation guide that might help us to write TNA-specific templates?
>>> Mills's templates are (naturally) designed for NARA and US State archives (most of which follow
>>> NARA practice, saves them from having to spend money designing their own), so might not fit
>>> perfectly with TNA.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> John Ralls
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> John,
>>
>> The National Archives do provide advice for citing documents:
>>
>> http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/citing-documents.htm
>>
>> This is one example that I couldn't find a good template for - there are others.
>>
>> I don't mind writing my own templates, but I want to check that it is possible to write them and easy to distribute them.
>>
>> So in this case, I would like to take the repository name and call-number from the repository and repository reference.  This will give the reference down to piece level.  Then we just need fields for Folio, Page, etc... from the citation.
>>
>> This is why I liked your idea of making the templates data-driven rather than in the code.
> It looks to me like Manuscript Records (Series, Emphasis on) can map the examples in that page pretty easily.
>
> * Department number (PRO, HMSS, etc) goes in Collection
> * Series number goes in Series; if there's a sub-number (e.g., PRO 30/36), the subnumber could go in Series no. or be
>     combined with the Series and the Piece number put in the Series no.. The examples use the same notation for both
>     Series sub-number and Piece, so it's not entirely clear to me what's more natural.
> * That leaves File, File No., and Record ID to divide up the "internal reference" bits, which should be sufficient.
>    One would need to include the abbreviations (e.g. rot 4r-4d) in the field entry; I don't think we want to try to
>    encode that in Gramps.
>
> Regards,
> John Ralls
>
>
>
>
John,

Yes.  I agree that TNA citations could be mapped to EE Manuscript Records.

In fact, Manuscript Records (Document, Emphasis on) gives an almost 
1-to-1 mapping.

Document Title = Document Title
Collection = Department
Series = Series
Series No. = Piece

Volume = Probably not used
Page = Reference  (The user would provide the appropriate abbreviations)

There are a few problems with this:

1.  I don't think that Aunt Martha will easily find the correct template.
2.  The citation format does not conform to the TNA standard.
3.  The user is not guided as to what fields to use.
4.  The attribute names will not be ideal (not much of an issue).
5.  The template does not use the call-number field which users may 
already be using for the full reference.

This is why we need the ability to define our own templates.

Nick.