Family Historian User Group

I am now using custom queries extensively to sort out what data I am missing, and what needs to be done, but I've been beaten by one item I want to get into a query.  In Individual Properties, on the 'Sources for', at the bottom there is a note field, which I want to get into a query.  The trouble is that there are so many note fields, that I can't seem to find the right one.  In fact, there seems to be an infinite expansion of note fields within note fields!

Does anyone know how to do this?  Or can someone explain to me how the fields are structured?  Having used INDI.BAPM.SOUR.QUAY to get the certainty assessment for a baptism source into the query, I thought it would be a doddle to get the note in.  Three weeks later, I realise that there appear to be more possible note fields than I could possibly try.

David  

ID:1046

Hi David,
Can you please give an example of where the source note you are trying to put in the query is located as the heirachy on the query matches the structures on the all tab of the individual. so if you could provide that info, then we should be able to work out which not you need.

Richard

Thanks.  The 'note' I want to insert into a query is at the bottom on the right.  I would also like to know how to work out which 'note' or other field is the right one to insert.



David

Hi David,
The simple answer to this question i believe will be INDI.BIRT.SOUR.NOTE2.
To answer your question about how to work it out, you need to look at the structure of the data, and think of a hierachy. In this case when you look at the 'all' tab and expand out the details you should see that the note is held under the Source item, under the birth item under the individual. Now in this case your source is a 'linked' source (i.e. can be viewed on the source tab of the main window, so from the query list you would use the 'Source>>' item under the Birth event, if it was a local source on the individual you would use the 'Source Note' item. I hope this makes sense [confused]

Hello Richard,

Many thanks.  That did the trick, and I think I am beginning to understand how the hierachy of fields is organized.

David