* Questions relating to transitioning from RM9 to FH7

[Gary_G]

Below are just some of the current things that confuse me (in no particular order) on coming from RM9 and an Evidence Explained environment. I could use some help with them, if someone cares to chime in.

1) RootsMagic has the concept of “copying and pasting” a source, or alternatively, “reusing” one. I believe the best way to describe the difference is that one can independently edit the former resulting citations, whereas in the latter changing one changes all. Does FH7 have the same concept? How are these two different types represented after importing an RM9 into FH7?
2) It is said that FH7 is oriented towards Splitters. When I look at an extreme Splitter template for a website, there seems to be a vast amount of field Metadata that is invariant for a given source. How do extreme splitters deal with having to re-record so much information in every template? Seems that Splitting is good for one-off items items and not so much so for items that have a lot of data in common.
3) I don’t really understand the purpose of the “Prepared Citation” in a typical workflow. Is it just a “notepad” version of the last citation for a source and can be copied and attached to fact? Does changing it alone affect any attached citations?
4) Evidence Explained considers a website to be a source and doesn’t really talk about repositories, but FH7 seems to consider a website to be a repository and the source is a specific item or collection within it. [This difference in definitions makes it really difficult to interpret the FH7 documentation, posts, tutorials etc.] I’m still trying to reconcile this dichotomy.

[Valkrider]

Gary

Have you explored the Auto Source Citation of FH yet? If not it may help. I did a video on its use some time ago https://youtu.be/PrBOcHAwc1o It may be worth a look.

[Gary_G]

Colin;

I did take a brief look at Auto Source Citation, but didn't pursue it further as I hadn't quite figured out some the more basic issues I had with citations. What specific need was it meant to address?

[Gary_G]

Colin;

I watched the video again and see what it does. However; when Auto Source Citation is used, does it copy the base citation as a completely new instance or does it just use pointers to the existing one. Regarding the latter; when one changes the source from within one person, do all occurrences get the same change?

[tatewise]

1) RootsMagic has the concept of “copying and pasting” a source, or alternatively, “reusing” one. I believe the best way to describe the difference is that one can independently edit the former resulting citations, whereas in the latter changing one changes all. Does FH7 have the same concept? How are these two different types represented after importing an RM9 into FH7?

Both RM9 and FH7 have Source items associated with multiple Citation items in much the same way.
Unlike RM9, FH7 has no built-in Copy Source record option, but there are plugins that can do that.
The new Source record is completely independent of the original but has no Citations.
In FH7 if you change fields values in a Source record then that potentially impacts all associated Citations, although none of the Citations themselves are changed. Only the Source Record Title, Footnote or Short Footnote might change.
I presume each RM9 Source becomes an FH7 Source record and each RM9 Citation becomes an FH7 Citation.

2) It is said that FH7 is oriented towards Splitters. When I look at an extreme Splitter template for a website, there seems to be a vast amount of field Metadata that is invariant for a given source. How do extreme splitters deal with having to re-record so much information in every template? Seems that Splitting is good for one-off items and not so much so for items that have a lot of data in common.

Which extreme Splitter template for a website were you looking at?
The Essentials - Website template is Lumper oriented because two key fields are Citation-specific.
I think AS helps to some extent, but otherwise I suspect we just live with it.

3) I don’t really understand the purpose of the “Prepared Citation” in a typical workflow. Is it just a “notepad” version of the last citation for a source and can be copied and attached to fact? Does changing it alone affect any attached citations?

Changing the Prepared Citation affects nothing else.
It is part of the Source-Driven data entry strategy where a Source Citation is prepared first and copied to each new fact.
For the Splitter method, both the Source record and the Citations will be new entities.
For the Lumper method, an existing Source will be reused and the Citations will have Citation-specific values.
Bear in mind that only the Citation is copied to the new facts. The same Source record will be used throughout.

4) Evidence Explained considers a website to be a source and doesn’t really talk about repositories, but FH7 seems to consider a website to be a repository and the source is a specific item or collection within it. [This difference in definitions makes it really difficult to interpret the FH7 documentation, posts, tutorials etc.] I’m still trying to reconcile this dichotomy.

Those better versed in Evidence Explained may have a better explanation but I suspect EE is not written with the GEDCOM specification in mind. The FH7 legacy is rooted in the GEDCOM specification in which Repository records share common source details and has only started using EE style templates recently.

Gary, when you talk about changing a source you need to be more specific.
Changing fields in a Source record will apply to all its Citations, although none of the Citation-specific values will change.
Changing fields in a Citation will only affect that Citation.
As far as I can tell it is much the same in RM.
Changing the Master Source text will apply to all its Citations, but the Citations themselves don't change.
Changing one Citation only affects that Citation.
I don't understand why you struggle with those almost identical concepts.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Unlike RM9, FH7 has no built-in Copy Source record option, but there are plugins that can do that.

Not quite right -- there is the Clone option if you select the source within ASC.

The Essentials - Website template is Lumper oriented because two key fields are Citation-specific.

However, that isn't the equivalent of e.g. the Advanced Church Records, Image Copies, Digitized Online -- it's probably closer to Publications: Books..., Electronic Publications, Website as "Book".

Changing the Prepared Citation affects nothing else.

Warning: Changing the Source elements in the Prepared Citation window DOES change the underlying source.

[LornaCraig]

RootsMagic has the concept of “copying and pasting” a source, or alternatively, “reusing” one. I believe the best way to describe the difference is that one can independently edit the former resulting citations, whereas in the latter changing one changes all. Does FH7 have the same concept? How are these two different types represented after importing an RM9 into FH7?

FH does have the concept of copying and pasting an existing Source-and-Citation combination. If you already have the Citation Window open you can use the Copy Citation option in the drop-down menu top right. Alternatively if you select a fact in an Individual's Property box you can then select an exiting Source-and-Citation from the Sources for.. pane using the Copy Citation to Source Clipboard icon.

Copy Citation to Source Clipboard.JPG (31.14 KiB) Viewed 1003 times

It can be pasted to another fact using the Paste icon to the right of the copy icon. Having pasted it you can then use the Edit Source Citation icon to the left to open the Prepared Citation window edit the citation details if required, because every citation is independent. But don't change the Source elements becasue, as Helen has said, that does affect the underlyng Source record.

[ColeValleyGirl]

1) RootsMagic has the concept of “copying and pasting” a source, or alternatively, “reusing” one. I believe the best way to describe the difference is that one can independently edit the former resulting citations, whereas in the latter changing one changes all. Does FH7 have the same concept? How are these two different types represented after importing an RM9 into FH7?

FH allows you to copy (clone) a source (via the ASC pane), or to copy and paste a citation (via either the ASC pane or the Prepared Citation pane).

Would a (partial) data model diagram help?

2) It is said that FH7 is oriented towards Splitters. When I look at an extreme Splitter template for a website, there seems to be a vast amount of field Metadata that is invariant for a given source. How do extreme splitters deal with having to re-record so much information in every template? Seems that Splitting is good for one-off items items and not so much so for items that have a lot of data in common.

In v6 I used a plugin called Add Source from Template, with templates defined to include the invariant information (so, I had a template for Parish Registers from Ancestry, and another for PRs from FindMyPast, for example). The plugin only works for Generic Sources, not Templated ones, and I haven't decided how I'm going to do it in V7, but I suspect cloning sources will play a part, supplemented by more granular templates for the most commonly used source types. I will say that for the record sources I'm mostly concerned with, I don't expect to have a lot of invariant data.

3) I don’t really understand the purpose of the “Prepared Citation” in a typical workflow. Is it just a “notepad” version of the last citation for a source and can be copied and attached to fact? Does changing it alone affect any attached citations?

There isn't really any such thing as a typical work flow in FH -- there are as many workflows (I suspect) as there are users. My workflow will probably be (when I stop writing DEA plugins and get back to doing research):

• Discover a new source with information relevant to my tree
• Create a Prepared Citation from a template, which creates the Source record, and optionally citation-specific data -- although I'm mostly a splitter, so I don't use much citation specific data except Assessment which has to be entered independently for each fact.
• Either run a DEA (Data Entry Assistant) to create or update the individuals, families and facts (assertions) that the source supports (and then use the Result Set from the DEA to locate the facts etc. where I need to enter an Assessment in the Citation, or do other finessing like mark a fact as 'Preferred'); or Enable Automatic if I'm going to create the facts etc. manually (in which case I can change the Citation Fields as I go along, bearing in mind that changes the Prepared Citation but not the underlying source.)

4) Evidence Explained considers a website to be a source and doesn’t really talk about repositories, but FH7 seems to consider a website to be a repository and the source is a specific item or collection within it. [This difference in definitions makes it really difficult to interpret the FH7 documentation, posts, tutorials etc.] I’m still trying to reconcile this dichotomy.

I've never used a website as a repository; it's either a source (if it's the equivalent of an publication/book) or a metafield within a source definition. As somebody else has already said, EE isn't concerned with how the data is stored; it's all about presentation.

[KFN]

Those better versed in Evidence Explained may have a better explanation but I suspect EE is not written with the GEDCOM specification in mind. The FH7 legacy is rooted in the GEDCOM specification in which Repository records share common source details and has only started using EE style templates recently.

EE is/was written as a way to Style citations in the genealogy world, much like other styles like APA, MLA, and Chicago/Turabian.

Typically these styles need, Title, Author, Publisher. And some other detail specific to the source type like page, date, format.

GEDCOM on the other hand records the various data point needed to produce the citation that each of these Styles need. Most of the fields needed for these entries can be found in one of three places in the v5.5.1 GEDCOM Standard, either the Source_Citation tags (Page, date), Source Record (Author, Title Publisher), Repository (Library, Archive, Government Agency)

I’m a big believer in GEDCOM, but the Standard was written at a time when books, and other physical documents, not “on the web”, also digital copy’s were bleeding edge at the time. The Styles that best match the needs of genealogy came from the then current Styles like Chicago, MLA, and APA, not EE!

However, GEDCOM can be updated to include a few additional tags and new definitions to support the more modern Citation Styles, and not just EE. The GEDCOM committee needs experts in database design with a background in library to help define the appropriate fields and definitions to implement better storing and sharing across application of this important information, otherwise applications have no recourse but to do it their own way and the data will not be transmitted between applications correctly.

[AdrianBruce]

... In v6 I used a plugin called Add Source from Template, with templates defined to include the invariant information (so, I had a template for Parish Registers from Ancestry, and another for PRs from FindMyPast, for example). The plugin only works for Generic Sources, not Templated ones, and I haven't decided how I'm going to do it in V7, but I suspect cloning sources will play a part, supplemented by more granular templates for the most commonly used source types. I will say that for the record sources I'm mostly concerned with, I don't expect to have a lot of invariant data. ...

For what it's worth, I use non-template / generic sources and do / did similar.

Given that I'm a splitter, if I were to be using templates, I suspect I'd be having more templates than the collections offer right now, with repeating information embedded in specific templates. For instance (and please don't ever hold me to this!) I suspect that one Census Return template in the Essentials collection would have 2 similar versions added for censuses in England & Wales and (separately) Scotland. This is because the referencing system for censuses in England & Wales is generally accepted to be The National Archives (Kew) call reference but the Scottish referencing is much more like the sort of Enumeration District found elsewhere. So rather than repeat the different formats of Reference (a vague term), I'd do specific templates. (Apologies to whoever wrote the Advanced collection's International Census (UK) template, but I find it awfully vague)

So I'm not sure of specifics but suspect that more templates (in addition to the existing ones) would be my direction were I to go to Templated Sources.

... As somebody else has already said, EE isn't concerned with how the data is stored; it's all about presentation.

Agreed - in another place I spent ages trying to match up ESM's EE definitions to software and / or GEDCOM until I realised that it's never intended to match. In fairness, that's what ESM says if you read her.

Incidentally, I get a little twitchy when someone says FH7 is oriented towards Splitters. To a degree, yes it is, but I would also say that for templated sources, it's actually the templates that drive most of the orientation, rather than FH itself - mostly because lumped sources can be lumped at almost any level making it near impossible to produce Lumped Templates of immediate use to everyone. And of course, there are good arguments that Splitters have issues in FH due to repeating information between source records - which is where we came in.

[Gary_G]

Thank you, so much, everyone. The feedback was incredibly useful.

In retrospect, I realize it was a bit of a general post. However; I'm trying to figure where I need to change my workflow and where I leave it well-enough alone. My concern is that if I start blindly inputing data without hearing about how others do things, I may end up with a huge amount of rework. Listening to the experiences of others is the way I learn and asking too specific a question means I don't actually get the full story. You'll see that I've posted and asked if there are FH7 aficionados or interest groups in my area. For me; trying to grasp some concepts may require being face-to-face.

My current work is almost entirely in France. Consequently; many of the existing DEA's and Auto-text definitions don't help me at all. AS seems like it has good potential for me, but I may still need to take an existing example of a DEA and and an Auto-text definition and tweak them for my area of study. I'm trying not to reinvent the wheel, but I realize I still need to learn the plugin-language in order to do DEA tailoring. I've quite a few programming languages under my belt, so all I need is time to learn it. :>)

Because of my heavy use of French Departmental archives, I'll likely rewrite/tweak all my Evidence Explained style templates to optimize them for FH7. The ported ones work, but would be better if tweaked for FH7. Thankfully; I'm quite experienced in writing them for RootsMagic and FH7 isn't all that different wrt. templates.

I should also note that I do a large number of transcriptions and translations, so figuring out how to do this in the context of FH7 is a bit of a learning experience.

So far, I've written and tested two versions of an EE-style template for the État Civil records from France. One is specifically for full splitting and really has nothing in the "citation" portion. The other is for maximum lumping and has all the invariant fields in the "source" portion. Both maximize the use of "Repositories" for some of their invariant data. I use these templates to experiment with FH7 and AS to see how my workflow is impacted.

Relative to RM9, FH7 seems more Splitter oriented. However; like RM9, FH7 can accommodate both and I may actually use both styles to my advantage.

[Valkrider]

Relative to RM9, FH7 seems more Splitter oriented. However; like RM9, FH7 can accommodate both and I may actually use both styles to my advantage.

Gary

I think you will find that a lot of FH Users (if not the majority) use both.

I use split sources for such things as Census, Marriage Register etc. I use lumped sources for things like the GRO reference for a birth certificate where I don't have the actual certificate at the moment but may at some stage in the future purchase so I have the details necessary to order the certificate.

[Gary_G]

Yes, "Valkrider";

I understand what you mean. Thank you for confirming my suspicions.
For me; the opportunity for splitting would likely be with physical items I hold in my local archives.

Gary

[sbell95]

Gary,

You might like to check out the Clone Any Record plugin, which is an alternate way of duplicating a source (other than using the option in the Automatic Source Citation pane). I've only just discovered it and will be playing around to see if it is quicker than ASC for my workflow.

In terms of being a splitter and having to duplicate the same fields/information across sources, I use the Online Repository Assistant (ORA) from John Cardinal for most of my online sources -- so all of my fields are filled out in mere seconds! Then I just review to make sure everything is correct and apply my source where it is needed from there. I prefer this over hardcoding that repeating/invariant informtion in a source template (or being a lumper) as then my templates can remain generic for any number of websites/repositories.

[Gary_G]

Sarah;

Thanks for the suggestions.
Must admit that I'm hesitant about ORA, since access to French Departmental records is VERY strange/convoluted and takes a bit of thought to document.

[sbell95]

You would be surprised by what ORA can extract, and the programmer John is very responsive to requests to add/update websites on his ORA-L forum. The scripting language is very powerful, and at the very least you could use it to extract basic invariant information like website name, URL, access date, etc., and then fill in your other source fields manually.

[Gary_G]

I'll have a look. Thank you.

[jmurphy]

ORA links:
https://www.ora-extension.com/en/index.htm#/

Terry's ORA Tips
https://tmg.reigelridge.com/ORA.htm

Before purchasing ORA, I joined the mailing list and lurked to get an idea of whether ORA would work for me.


I haven't ventured into the world of ORA AutoType templates yet. But even without that, the copy-and-paste features can save a lot of wear-and-tear.

[sbell95]

@jmurphy, I'm not sure if you intended to post a different link, but the groups.io page is non-existent for ORA. I use the Google Groups mailing list, ORA-L.

[jmurphy]

Sarah, thanks for catching that!

ORA-L is indeed hosted at Google Groups, not Groups.io. I've edited my earlier post.