Family Historian User Group

... if I wasn't transcribing and I recorded things like the 'Where in Source' in the citation I'd again have to duplicate that into the 10+ citations and if I was to get that reference wrong I've made the same mistake 10 times and have to change it in all those places. ... To illustrate what Nick s...

... I guess I would need an example of this to understand the differences! I just can’t visualize the use of the Standard GEDCOM tags as anything other than lumping! Well, here's the equivalent GEDCOM from my "proper" GEDCOM file, which uses non-templated, i.e. generic source records. Firstly the s...

... The two contrasting GEDCOMs are very useful to illustrate the difference (to those who are interested in the way the data is stored), but I think it might help if the second example also used the census fact rather than a residence and the same date. ... That's true, Nick. It just ended up that...

... Just as it would make sense to resolve whether that Repository should be where the source is (Ancestry) or where the source of the source is (TNA, Kew). I suspect both are needed somewhere. It is perfectly feasible to have two Repository metafields by modifying the Source Template. ... Yes, tha...

Adrian, Can I ask, without getting in trouble, what do the two lump vs split GEDCOM files look like? I’d want to know how they would translate into my own database. Thanks This is the split source-record for Charles W Salter (Source Record #8) 0 @S8@ SOUR 1 _SRCT @T5@ 1 _FIELD EN-REGION 2 ENUM Engl...

I noticed the {collection} field is not included in either example, is that by design? i.e. - it's not used in the output footnotes or bibliographies... Err. Good question. It's not used in the screenshots because it's not used in the original "Essential" template and I deliberately wanted to take ...

(this follows on from my previous post) These 2 images leap forward to show Citation Windows for each of the two previous source templates - one citation to the split template, and a second for the lumped per year / collection. In order to provide the closest comparison I have made up a source-recor...

Not sure quite where these should go (if anywhere) but I decided to compare a split and a lumped census Source Template Definitions, along with corresponding citations. The first image shows the STD out of the Essentials collection for a census return. This is split, i.e. it's designed to set up sou...

OK - sticking my head into the lion's jaw ... Following on from the above, here's my revised attempt at a definition of Citation , attempting to take on board some of the later comments. I may have missed some of those comments or been able to work out a better form of words. (Note I'm still not ha...

I suggest that first of all you go through the GEDCOM Validator section of https://www.dataminingdna.com/two-gedcom-validation-tools-reviewed-which-is-best/ . Note that it says at the start: Before you open a file, I suggest you check the validation mode on the top right of the screen. There are onl...

LornaCraig wrote: ↑

20 May 2023 21:53

AdrianBruce wrote: ↑

20 May 2023 19:12

I'm not sure it's true to say that no-one makes the Method 1 v Method 2 decision any more.....

I don't think anyone has said that. ...

Sorry - my mind over-simplified your logic and the direction it was (or wasn't) going in.

I was wondering about recasting it not as a comparison but as a set of considerations when deciding whether to split or lump an individual source/source type. I think that's what it should be - some of those considerations will surely end up as comparisons, quite sensibly. The considerations angle ...

I did think about proposing we ditched the article all together -- as Lorna says, it isn't a decision that most newcomers to the product will need to make.... I had thought the same (ditching it all together) but hesitated to make such a radical suggestion! I'm not sure it's true to say that no-one...

... Is it something like: the output Citation = Information from the Source-record plus optional, additional information unique to that particular citation . I almost suggested Information but thought it might clash with ESM's usage of the word; maybe that isn't important. Or what about Detail? I t...

... I think we should avoid the word 'data' (us old warhorses know what it means but a new genealogist may not think of what they're working with as 'data'). ... Sounds fine to me except I'm slightly concerned by the reference to "data" here. I wrote the output Citation = Data from the Source-recor...

OK - sticking my head into the lion's jaw (and / or lioness's? ;) ) Here's my attempt at a definition of Citation . There is a deliberate attempt to foreshadow Method 1 & 2 within the words, else some phrases might not be necessary. I also tried to pick up on some words in the FH Help Glossary. ----...

Adrian, does it help to consider that the citation structure in GEDCOM includes a pointer to the source record? So Citation (the tab) = Source Record + Citation-specific Details is about right. That "equation" I'm fine with. But it doesn't seem to line up with the table in "Citing Sources: Method 1...

We ought to be consistent with (a) GEDCOM and (b) the FH Help files (for V6 and V7) in the terminology we use -- anything else is a disservice to users, especially if they're coming from other products and are already familiar with the terminology of Sources/Source Records and Citations. Thanks for...

... In FH V6 and earlier, ... In FH V7, ... So perhaps a pair of screenshots are needed (one for V6 and one for V7) with an explanation of what fields the terms Source and Citation refer to. Thanks for that Mike. So "Citation-Specific Details" appears to be part of the Citation Window - the rightha...

Citation is not about the way the data is stored! So using term like Source_Record, Citation Detail, etc are storage terms, rather than citation values needed to properly site a specific source for the selected citation style. In the context of Citing Sources: Method 1 and Method 2 it is mainly abo...

... The only caveat is that Citation-Specific-Detail only exists in FH V7.0 and not earlier versions that the KB covers. ... That's true. So at the very least, there has to be a warning that this is v7 terminology. ... That is why I suggested a preliminary definition of the terms Source and Citatio...

... I'm not convinced any of the references in that table to Citation should be replaced by Citation-Specific-Detail; the table is talking about 'storage objects' (to coin a phrase to encompass Records and Citations) whereas the use of Citation-Specific-Details seems to be to name pieces of the UI....

... And the V7 Help still (validly) uses Citation in some places, to make things more complicated. ... Indeed. I was looking at one of the pages and realising that Citation can be used to mean the complete shebang of where the data comes from, what it is, etc. That's one perfectly correct use of th...

FYI: The term Citation-Specific was added in FH V7.0 but only applies to Templated Sources . ... As Helen indicates, it's used for Generic Sources as well - it's visible whenever we click on the Citation for a "Fact". Screenshot 2023-05-07 220824.jpg The image shows the tab labelled Citation as a c...

Some of the references to "Citation" need to be changed to "Citation Specific Details" to distinguish them from the overall Citation which includes (especially in its printed form) data from both the Source Record and the Citation Specific Detail. Also, I feel we should be specific in some cases whe...