Updating Source Template Fields already populated - issues
Posted: 10 Jan 2023 11:36
Background - See the thread viewtopic.php?p=132813#p132813
I raised in that thread the topic of updating the definitions of source template fields when they are already populated in linked source records. Mark Draper's comment (which I agree with) was that the issues deserved their own thread "if only to set reasonable expectation boundaries over what templates can and can't do, ... I think it needs its own thread and real examples to work through."
So I volunteered myself to type (some of) the words. Firstly I need to point out that I have no serious experience of using templated sources. I use generic sources where I have skeleton source records that get cloned for each new source record of that type. However, over the years, I know very well that those skeletons have changed. I have dabbled in templates but the sheer volume of my source records, plus inconsistent data contents stop me from going further. But I can see other issues - or I think I can - and (for the purposes of this thread) I'd like to discuss the issues raised by updating the definitions of source template fields when they are already populated in linked source records.
My initial thoughts (feel free to challenge) are that if I delete a template field, the field remains in the source record but it is not easily accessed. (So what?)
If I add a template field, this seems easy enough - my worry would be, would it make the source records created using the previous versions of the template, invalid in some way? I don't think so.... (Though obviously the work of populating the new item exists).
If I alter the definition of a template field - that would seem to have the possibility to cause issues. There must be type changes that work in one way but could cause issues another way - e.g. Date to Text might be OK but Text to Date might require work beforehand.
The real problems surely occur when stuff is updated in groups - e.g. Templated Item A is replaced by Templated Items B and C.
An example - I tried to set up a few example source records in a little project based on the Essentials collection and got the distinct impression that I'd need to alter lots of the templates - otherwise I'd be losing information. (Yes, I could mung everything into one templated item but then what's the point in having templates?). So for instance the Civil Registration Certificate went from 11 to 18 items. Most of those were extra items relating to how the copy in my hand had been produced (handwritten, facsimile, contemporary copy given to Informant, etc). But the major change was where I replaced the fairly amorphous item "Location" with "Event Place" and "Indexed Place" (Event Place = "Haslington", say, and Indexed Place = "Crewe Sub-District, Nantwich Registration District"). If I had source records already set up with the Essentials / Civil Registration Certificate (I didn't), then I'd be at risk of losing content in the original Location templated item.
In this case, I have the more detailed skeleton source record to set myself off on the right foot - but I know that I will refine stuff in the future (aka fiddle and shoot myself in the foot).
So - are there other issues? Are there ways of mitigating the issues? Are there sufficient warnings about the possible issues? (If someone wants to point me at a detailed KB article that I've missed, feel free to do so...) Anyone who feels confident in their ability to stick to the provided templates, fine - but that's not me. I know that I'll fiddle....
I raised in that thread the topic of updating the definitions of source template fields when they are already populated in linked source records. Mark Draper's comment (which I agree with) was that the issues deserved their own thread "if only to set reasonable expectation boundaries over what templates can and can't do, ... I think it needs its own thread and real examples to work through."
So I volunteered myself to type (some of) the words. Firstly I need to point out that I have no serious experience of using templated sources. I use generic sources where I have skeleton source records that get cloned for each new source record of that type. However, over the years, I know very well that those skeletons have changed. I have dabbled in templates but the sheer volume of my source records, plus inconsistent data contents stop me from going further. But I can see other issues - or I think I can - and (for the purposes of this thread) I'd like to discuss the issues raised by updating the definitions of source template fields when they are already populated in linked source records.
My initial thoughts (feel free to challenge) are that if I delete a template field, the field remains in the source record but it is not easily accessed. (So what?)
If I add a template field, this seems easy enough - my worry would be, would it make the source records created using the previous versions of the template, invalid in some way? I don't think so.... (Though obviously the work of populating the new item exists).
If I alter the definition of a template field - that would seem to have the possibility to cause issues. There must be type changes that work in one way but could cause issues another way - e.g. Date to Text might be OK but Text to Date might require work beforehand.
The real problems surely occur when stuff is updated in groups - e.g. Templated Item A is replaced by Templated Items B and C.
An example - I tried to set up a few example source records in a little project based on the Essentials collection and got the distinct impression that I'd need to alter lots of the templates - otherwise I'd be losing information. (Yes, I could mung everything into one templated item but then what's the point in having templates?). So for instance the Civil Registration Certificate went from 11 to 18 items. Most of those were extra items relating to how the copy in my hand had been produced (handwritten, facsimile, contemporary copy given to Informant, etc). But the major change was where I replaced the fairly amorphous item "Location" with "Event Place" and "Indexed Place" (Event Place = "Haslington", say, and Indexed Place = "Crewe Sub-District, Nantwich Registration District"). If I had source records already set up with the Essentials / Civil Registration Certificate (I didn't), then I'd be at risk of losing content in the original Location templated item.
In this case, I have the more detailed skeleton source record to set myself off on the right foot - but I know that I will refine stuff in the future (aka fiddle and shoot myself in the foot).
So - are there other issues? Are there ways of mitigating the issues? Are there sufficient warnings about the possible issues? (If someone wants to point me at a detailed KB article that I've missed, feel free to do so...) Anyone who feels confident in their ability to stick to the provided templates, fine - but that's not me. I know that I'll fiddle....
) To be quite honest, I do wonder if I am doing the right thing by entering the actual place of a birth into the citation, but if I omit the physical event detail, the citation distracts me by being misleading. For instance, in the 1939 Register, my great-uncle would be cited as being in Crewe Municipal Borough - yet he wasn't - he was in a village a couple of miles outside the town. Similarly, if I cited "Crewe Sub-District, Nantwich Registration District" against my mother's birth certificate, that would instantly make me say - "Hang on, wasn't she born in Haslington? Recording in the citation that it was "Shavington" and "Crewe MB" for the 1939 and "Haslington" and "Crewe Sub-District, Nantwich Registration District", avoids the distraction by explaining the hierarchy.