* FH 7 and Citation Specific Fields

[stanm]

Hello readers,

Like many of you, I have been getting up to speed with the tectonic shift from FH 6.2 to 7. One feature that I have longed for, source templates, has arrived and that is where I have been initially focused.

I have a question about the new Source Templates. They come in two flavors: Essential & Advanced. The Advanced templates follow the QuickCheck Models in Evidence Explained and are the ones that I have used.

I tried to cite a published book using the Advanced template: "Book: Basic Format (Publications: Books, CDs, Maps, Leaflets & Videos/Print Publications)," which is probably the simplest. I tested adding two citations to different pages of the same book. But it wouldn't let me do that because the page number had not been mapped as a Citation-Specific field. Instead, it is forcing me to use a separate source for each page in the book.

If you step through the Advanced templates in the Source Template Definitions dialog, and view the Template Details at the bottom of the window, you will see that Citation-Specific fields are not used in any of the Advanced templates. On the other hand, if you view the templates for the Essential collection, you will see the template "Book/Pamphlet/Monograph (Publications)" with a "Page Etc" field, that is Citation-Specific. There are other templates in the Essential collection that use Citation-Specific fields as well.

The lack of Citation-Specific fields in the Advanced templates makes me wonder if these templates were not intended to be used "as is" but instead serve as a starting point for customization. I think those who plan to use the Advanced templates, would welcome some hint about the planned support for them.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I think the Advanced templates will need a little tweaking, as you describe. (But then I've always done that with ESM's templates, as they're not perfect for e.g. UK certificates.)

[stanm]

Thanks for the confirmation. Like you, I end up customizing the templates anyway.

[AdrianBruce]

For what it's worth if anyone is concerned, I have a feeling that this issue may arise anywhere where the ESM-style template refers to a Lumped or Type 2 Source. We may not think of books as Lumped sources (though I'll bet we all agree that Directories are!) but they are normally used with lots of different citations, each with a different where-within-source, i.e. a different page number, so they are lumped.

You'll get no clue from the ESM QuickCheck models whether it's a Lumped / Type 2 source because her models only show the one entry, and she is not concerned with entry into software programs (there's just too many of them!), only the final report.

[stanm]

I have a feeling that this issue may arise anywhere where the ESM-style template refers to a Lumped or Type 2 Source.

The behavior I expected is influenced by my experience using source templates with other genealogy software. Typically templates will have some fields (whether optional or required) that fall into the Citation-Specific category. Of the 170 or so templates in the Advanced collection, I don't see any template using a Citation-Specific field. That would seem to make templated sources into super-splitter Type 1 by default.

[NickWalker]

I think that's a very succinct way of putting it and is definitely the case as far as I can see. I think FH7 is definitely directing people to using the 'method 1' splitter method.

[SimonPotter]

I think it's more "work in progress" rather than a specific direction from CP. Even the Advanced Vital Records Register template, which is presumably for the GRO BMD Indexes, is currently set up on a splitter basis. I think most FH users would "lump" the GRO birth index, with citations for District, vol and page.

[paultt]

Along time ago, I made a decision to go with the 'lumper' strategy based on the good old model of a gedcom can have many Repositories; each Repository can have many Sources; and each Source can have many Citations. So for example I have the The National Archives as the repostitory for the 1841, 51, 51, etc England Census records as Sources, and each page of a batch of census records become unique Citations per person on that page (pseudo splitter mode). I have tried to keep to this strategy in FHv7, and use the Generic Sources with the Citations, and it works for me.
The other reason that I have kept away from the Source Templating structure, is that each Template has, or will have unique fields defined for the Source/Citation. These Template definitions, whether from the Essential Collection or Advanced Collection or custom made will not be understood by the target software if you do an export, UNLESS, the target software can be modified to apply those Template definition records, on a one-to-one basis. ie, each time I create a new Templated source definition, the target software would most likely have to be modified somehow to cater for that new Template. Mike Tate has developed a really useful plugin, Exprt Gedcom File plugin, wherein he has catered for most of the modifications needed for target systems, but there is no way that he can script for every unique situation.
I use Famiy Historian for two purposes: a) as the interim 'capture and verification' tool for the data and media that I export to 3 different websites all running under TNG, The Next Generation, and b) as a very nice method of capturing all the data and producing smart reports and charts for my own and family use, that cannot be created by TNG.
I know it is nice to climb into a new version or piece of software and see what it does, but also consider how and why you are going to use Family Historian now and in the future: Just for yourself and family? Export to a website of your own, ie TNG, Gedsite, etc? Or to one of the 'big 5' (Ancestry, FamlySearch, Findmypast, Geni or MyHeritage, WikiTree) where you have or are planning to have a family tree that could be open to the world?
Consider why you are using the 'splitter' or 'lumper' or combination thereof before you go too far and have to redo all that hard work again.

[AdrianBruce]

... Of the 170 or so templates in the Advanced collection, I don't see any template using a Citation-Specific field. ...

That would figure. In fairness, if anyone wants to lump censuses, say, where can Calico Pie draw the line about what to put in citation specific? There will be some who'll put all the 1901 Census (say) for England & Wales into a single source record and everything "below" (if that's the right term) goes into citation-specific. But others could create a source-record for a single Piece of the 1901, and only things below that into citation specific. (I'm not claiming that division point makes sense, just that it's one of several possibilities).

... That would seem to make templated sources into super-splitter Type 1 by default.

Certainly it makes the ESM style templates into Type 1 fully-split. But as Helen said above, many of us won't use an untouched ESM format anyway, so it won't matter quite that much.

Perhaps the most important thing is just to alert people to the implications of the templates for the ESM styles chosen and for that I thank you!

[NickWalker]

My advice with Ancestral Sources' was always that 'Splitter' was better if you were transcribing the source record (because it avoids duplicating the transcription multiple times in all the citations for each individual in the household's census facts, occupation facts, etc.) but that 'Lumper' was better if you were just recording the source of the information without a transcription. I still think this is sensible advice for users of Family Historian - a lot of this is due to the shortcomings of the underlying Gedcom and the inability to have shared citations without duplication.