* Question about citations added to Media records

[Gary_G]

I notice that FH7 media records can have citations added. I've seen this in other programs and I believe I've seen it in the GEDCOM standard. I've always wondered why it's there. Could someone explain the practical use of this feature? Perhaps I'm missing something useful.

[ColeValleyGirl]

If you have (say) a photograph of an individual, you can use the citation to record its source etc. 'Betty Boop provided this via Ancestry; I don't know the original photographer and am on the fence about whether this if Great Aunt Ada or not...'

[Gary_G]

Helen;

So; this would be used as a citation to a single image and create a standard Source Record associated with that single image. When one creates a citation for a "fact", it creates a standard Source Record for the single fact. I realize that all Source Records can have multiple images attached, but for an image citation, doing that would perhaps be pointless. That makes me think that this capability was intended for, per your example, things like the headshots one sees in a tree diagram etc. Is that more-or-less correct?

[KFN]

Helen;

So; this would be used as a citation to a single image and create a standard Source Record associated with that single image. When one creates a citation for a "fact", it creates a standard Source Record for the single fact. I realize that all Source Records can have multiple images attached, but for an image citation, doing that would perhaps be pointless. That makes me think that this capability was intended for, per your example, things like the headshots one sees in a tree diagram etc. Is that more-or-less correct?

This is why my source_records are general not specific. And I put everything pertaining to the fact in my Source_Citation. I try to keep all Source_Records containing the same level of detail. The Source_Record for me is the whole Census (all Death/Birth/Marriage Certificates I have) just like the Source_Record would be the person or entity that supplied the image(s) and the Source_Citation contains the detail about the specific fact the source supplied. I think I’m an extreme Lumper, but I’m always confused by the terms!

I also don’t use the Source_Citation for images from the base Source_Record (census, bible, church book) I assume that any image associated with the Source_Record are from that source. But I do use the images Source_Citation for images that come from providers like Aunt Tilly’s photo album, or images of houses/farms, artwork, maps, things that are not sources of facts but background copy.

[Gary_G]

"KFN";

Thanks for you input.

I get confused by the terms, "splitter" vs. "lumper", as well. But the following is my reasoning as to why I use one or the other based on the likelihood I'll need to edit the associated transcription.

I tend to try to explain it based on how I construct my templates and therefore how I enter my data. Hope the following helps more than it confuses.

Being a "splitter" vs. "lumper" is more a reflection of whether one puts more is the source portion of a template or more in the citation portion of a template. Placing more in the citation portion results in more being "lumped" under a single source record. As one has the choice of how much is put in either section, "splitting" vs. "lumping" tends to be a range and one can "split" or "lump" more or less as it suits them.

Because fully "split" sources would have everything in the source portion, editing one instance edits all occurrences. This is a result of the way the GEDCOM standard is set up. This can be useful in census entries, if one feels that they may need to edit the transcribed information. This logic is be applicable to other types of collections, so some people like to use split sources for those as well. However; splitting results in more source records and some find that makes the list of source records a bit long and confusing.

On the other hand, collections like the GRO index lend themselves to "lumping", because there is rather little likelihood of needing to edit the reference one takes from the website. This has the benefit of keeping the number of Source Record entries down and results in reducing the potential of clutter and confusion from long source lists.

In the end, finding a balance that suits them is something with which everyone struggles.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Helen;

So; this would be used as a citation to a single image and create a standard Source Record associated with that single image. When one creates a citation for a "fact", it creates a standard Source Record for the single fact. I realize that all Source Records can have multiple images attached, but for an image citation, doing that would perhaps be pointless. That makes me think that this capability was intended for, per your example, things like the headshots one sees in a tree diagram etc. Is that more-or-less correct?

I have no idea how it was intended to be used (we need to consult the gedcom gurus for that) but it makes sense to me to record where I sourced an in image (other than an image source, which is covered in the source citation). So yes, images of people or places.

[Gary_G]

Thanks, Helen.

[AdrianBruce]

... I have no idea how it [SOURCE_CITATION inside a MULTIMEDIA_RECORD - I hope! AB] was intended to be used (we need to consult the gedcom gurus for that) ...

Unless one ploughed all the way through all sorts of intermediate documents, I suspect that there's no current evidence of anyone's intention for how the item was to be used. The list of GEDCOM changes at the start of the standards - which was incomplete in the 5.5.1 standard that everyone claimed was finalised! - gives no reason for its inclusion - at least none that I've found. By the time the reader gets down to any useful detail about SOURCE_CITATION, it refers to anything and everything, not just Multimedia.

At first glance the SOURCE_CITATION inside a MULTIMEDIA_RECORD isn't in GEDCOM 5.5, only in 5.5.1, but Tamura Jones refutes this, saying:

The <<SOURCE_CITATION>> line is not new in GEDCOM 5.5.1. It was added to GEDCOM 5.5 through the GEDCOM 5.5 errata sheet.

I'll believe him - there are so many versions of everything that I'm in no position to dispute it.

So - Gallic shrug of shoulders...

[KFN]

At first glance the SOURCE_CITATION inside a MULTIMEDIA_RECORD isn't in GEDCOM 5.5, only in 5.5.1, but Tamura Jones refutes this, saying:

The <<SOURCE_CITATION>> line is not new in GEDCOM 5.5.1. It was added to GEDCOM 5.5 through the GEDCOM 5.5 errata sheet.

Yes, this is true it was added in GEDCOM 5.5 errata sheet.

[KFN]

FYI, GEDCOM 5.4 included these comments about Source_Records and Source_Citations when they were added.

* The SOURCE_RECORD structure was simplified into five basic sections: data or classification, author, title, publication facts, and repository. The data or classification section contains facts about the data represented by this source and is used to analyze the collection of sources that the researcher used.
The author, title, publication facts, and repository sections provide free-form text blocks that inform subsequent researchers how to obtain the source data that the original researcher used.

* The <<SOURCE_CITATION>> structure is placed subordinate to the fact being cited. It is generally best if the source citation contains only information specific to the fact being cited and then points to the more general description of the source, defined in a SOURCE_RECORD. This reduces redundancy, provides a way of controlling the GEDCOM record size, and more closely represents the normalized data model.

Systems that structure sources into AUTHor, TITLe, PUBLication, and REPOsitory descriptions can and should always pass this information in GEDCOM using the SOURce record pointed to by the <<SOURCE_CITATION>>. Systems that do not structure source information into these categories should provide the following information as part of the source citation structure:

* A descriptive title of the source
* Who created the work
* When and where was it created
* Where can it be obtained or viewed

[Little.auk]

I notice that FH7 media records can have citations added. I've seen this in other programs and I believe I've seen it in the GEDCOM standard. I've always wondered why it's there. Could someone explain the practical use of this feature? Perhaps I'm missing something useful.

I have tried this out - If you add a source citation to an image it appears in the source records list, but the media item does not appear in the source property box. If, on the other hand, you create a source and add media to it, the citation does not appear in the media property box.

I have always created the source and linked media to it, but I can think of a few situations where you might want to add the source citation to the media. For example -

1 - If you want to link media directly to an individual, not to an event (e.g. a photograph).
2 - If the media was to be used in Reports, Books or Booklets, and not linked to specific events or people.

A quick update

I have done a bit more testing and have found that you can create a source for an image and then add the same image to the source - so from the media property box you can access the source and from the source property box access the media.

There is another situation where linking the source to the media is the only way of adding a source - that is for media linked to a Place, as the Places Property Box has no facility to add a source citation.

So if, for example, you wanted to link a picture of a Church to a place, the only way of documenting a source for the picture is to attach it to the media.

[Gary_G]

Thanks for doing the investigation.
What you found is in line with what I expressed in my reply to one of Helen's earlier posts.

I have done a bit more testing and have found that you can create a source for an image and then add the same image to the source - so from the media property box you can access the source and from the source property box access the media.

Wrt. the foregoing quote; I believe that a number of people used to do something like that in RM8 and 9. However; hardly anyone in the RM-world really explained when and why it could be useful.