* What meta-fields can be used in Footnotes and Bibliographies?

[Gary_G]

I remember hearing that this had been hashed out somewhere, but couldn't really find the forum thread.
I believe I've managed to use citation-section meta-fields in the Short and Long Footnotes by using the correct referencing techniques. I've not been able to use citation-section meta-fields in the bibliography. I'm not quite sure why. I get the feeling that this is not a coding issue on my part, but an FH7 restriction. Am I correct?

[tatewise]

You are correct.
See the Help page Source Template Formats under Citation-Specific Fields which says:
"You cannot use citation-specific fields with record title formats, or with bibliography formats, as these both relate to the Source record, independent of any citation."

[Gary_G]

Thanks Mike.

In a Lumper world, it restricts some approaches one might use per Evidence Explained style. Without going into great detail; trying to use a Lumper/EE-Style and handle ARK links could be a bit messy, as ARKS are most often used as direct links to an item and need to be documented at a citation-level. Essentially; their use might force one into creating a splitter template just to use them in an EE-Style citation.

However; as always, there are many ways to skin a cat. I think I can find some other way of Lumper-style referencing that will do the job.

[tatewise]

See the long discussion in Allow citation fields in bibliography on sources (21318) which I thought had resulted in a Wish List entry but it has not.

[cwhermann]

In a Lumper world, it restricts some approaches one might use per Evidence Explained style. Without going into great detail; trying to use a Lumper/EE-Style and handle ARK links could be a bit messy, as ARKS are most often used as direct links to an item and need to be documented at a citation-level. Essentially; their use might force one into creating a splitter template just to use them in an EE-Style citation.

However; as always, there are many ways to skin a cat.

Gary,
I "skinned this cat" by utilizing two separate URL meta fields. I use a field titled "Site URL" for the source/bibliography which is typically the home page for the website. I then use a field titled "Landing URL" for the ARK link to the image.

[Gary_G]

Mike;

Thanks for your help.

I read over the noted thread. I didn't see any mention of someone asking Calico Pie why they set it up as they have. That's a bit odd. Perhaps there was a good technical reason for the limitations imposed.

All said and done; I don't think anything I say will change things in a measurable way. FH7 has some limitations, as all programs do. I'm just going to do my best to learn how FH7 works and accommodate the idiosyncrasies.

All this talk about a person being a lumper or a splitter seems a bit overdone. The more sources I cite, the more that I am convinced that some sources are just structured in a way such that it's more pragmatic to use one or the other. I'll likely have both types of templates, as to do otherwise would result in an inefficient use of my data-entry time.

[Gary_G]

"cwherman";

I, too, have tried that approach...and to some extent, I think it works. In fact; I did that quite often in RootsMagic. However; in FH7 it is much more tricky to do the same thing and still look perfectly EE-like. I could go into the details, but it would be a bit of a long post.

[cwhermann]

I read over the noted thread. I didn't see any mention of someone asking Calico Pie why they set it up as they have. That's a bit odd. Perhaps there was a good technical reason for the limitations imposed.

When I first was considering the move from RM to FH7, (before the direct import capabilities and Mark was working on a plugin to help import the RM templates), I struggled with this question and contacted CP. There is a thread about this someplace. But the reason you can't use citation level met-fields in Bibliography templates is that when a user runs a report with a Bibliography, if there are multiple citations associated with the same bibliography template - then the software does not know which data from which citation entry to use when generating the Bibliography. I also contacted RM about how they make it work, and after running three separate trials in RM with small databases, they admitted it did not work. I created a citation for an online publication I accessed in December of 2002 and entered the access dated 15 December 2002 for the citation and used the [accessed date:YEAR] in the Bibliography template. I then created a citation for accessing the same publication in February of 2012, but a different page and item of interest and entered 12 February 2012 in the [Access Date] field. RM replaced the 2002 in the database with 2012. When I ran a report with a bibliography, the report only showed the 2012 year accessed. Repeating this with several different data sets, I concluded that RM retained the [Accessed date:YEAR] from the last citation entered. Hence, where needed, I create a separate "bibliography" meta-field entered at the source record level if needed. I think this issue mostly shows up on source/citations for digital images of records where I need to add a layer for the website.

[ColeValleyGirl]

See the long discussion in Allow citation fields in bibliography on sources (21318) which I thought had resulted in a Wish List entry but it has not.

Only because we're so far behind on transferring wishes into the Wish List, Mike.

[Gary_G]

Curtis;

As I noted; you and I are very much aligned on how we've tried to get around the "bibliography" issue and still appear to follow EE-Style.

EE-style is based on shoe-horning everything into a book-citation paradigm and for some types of sources it takes a lot of "hand-waving" and references to "it's an art not a science" to make it fit. The current GEDCOM standard also has a very "bookish" flair to it and this affects almost every genealogy program out there. Even the GEDCOM 7 standard has a note that recognizes it still contains that limitation to some extent. I've written to the people that steer the standard development and they also acknowledge there are still issues with this. In short; it seems like the practice of genealogy will continue to be firmly anchored to citing everything as if it were a book, so it's no surprise that the way we are permitted to cite websites still has issues. We, the users, can only deal with the fallout.

On a more pragmatic note; I wonder if there are papers on the reasons why footnotes and bibliographies are structured as they are and the rationale for the content of each part? Perhaps there are alternative ways to achieve the actual goals of footnotes and bibliographies?

[Peter Collier]

I have to admit as to being confused as to why you would have any citations in a bibliography. By my understanding, that's not what a bibliography is for. Back in my student days, citations were in-line and cross-referenced to the sources. The bibliography on the other hand was just a list of all the works consulted, whether ultimately cited or not.

That for me is where the bibliography section in FH reports fall a little short; it just replicates the list of sources, albeit that you can change the format a little. Ideally, you would be able to list all consulted documents (Parish Records where you searched but found nothing, perhaps, or books you read to understand the history of a particular place without finding anything directly related to your family). However, there is nowhere to enter that sort of information, so I can understand why FH is therefore unable to detail it.

[Gary_G]

Peter;

Somewhere in the thread there must be a mix-up in terminology. Heaven knows that every style manual uses terms a little differently. The real issue has nothing to do with what one calls the various elements, but rather what the various standards say they are supposed to contain, relative to what FH7 allows them to contain. I've just spent the past few hours going over current documentation for various widely-accepted standards to confirm this.

As one example...
The key issue for most Lumpers is that almost every published citation standard includes a publication year or revision date in whatever term they use for a "Bibliography". Typically; that date is an abbreviated form of the date of publication or access that must occur in the full "Footnote". For a Lumper, especially with web sources, the access date is not always static over numerous references to a given source. So; that date must be placed in the invariant section that FH7 calls the "citation" portion and not the variable "source" portion of a template. Because CP does not currently allow "citation"-level data to be inserted into a "bibliography", Lumpers are having a rather difficult time conforming to the essentials of most citation standards.

[ColeValleyGirl]

If those with vested interests in Allow citation fields in bibliography on sources (21318) contribute to fleshing out the Wish List item, we can get it moved to the Wish List for CP to consider.

[Gary_G]

I was just thinking again about how all these issues "go away", if one is using full Splitting. My only practical concern is about how to handle repetitive data-entry and how to make any required global changes to normally invariant template meta-fields. If I could properly address this concern, then working with FH7 and not against it would be something I'd consider.

With some sources, there might be several meta-fields that typically don't change eg. (fields relating to documenting a website). As a Splitter, one could spend a fair amount of time entering this into every template instance. And; if the data did change, one could have quite a bit of work to update it across all the individual instances. The only way I can see of addressing both aspects would be a plugin that presents a user-specified template and allows one to input the data that is then written to every use of that template. Possibly a bit "dangerous", but I think it is technically feasible.

Have any of the Lua programmers any opinions on this?

[tatewise]

Gary, I thought you were investigating the use of Repository records to hold the values that don't change.
Then that one Repository record can be linked to all the Source records that share that common data.
If any of that data needs updating then it needs just one change to the Repository.
As discussed earlier, any Repository data can be included in Footnote/Bibliography Format templates.

A plugin solution might require one Source Template to be specified and all the associated Source records scanned for fields with common values. Those fields and their common values would be displayed so the user can change the values. Any changes would be copied to every associated Source record.

[Gary_G]

Mike;

I think you alluded to this before??? Maybe I didn't explain well enough.

I am currently using any FH7 feature that I can to hold invariant data; repositories included.
However; FH7 only allows adding fields that are defined in the GEDCOM standard.
In a Lumper paradigm, there may be many other invariant fields needed to hold website or artifact-related data.
So; there can still be quite a few to address.

With regard to a program to address the perceive issue, your suggestion is very much like what I had in mind.

Before I rush off and blindly try to write something, though, I think I need to ask the obvious question. How do current Splitters address the issue? I can't see how multiple citations to items on the same website could be entered without running into it. Perhaps you've seen how Splitters handle it?

[tatewise]

The workaround to adding non-GEDCOM fields is to use labelled Note text similar to that explained in FHUG Knowledge Base Entering Standard and Custom Fields for Facts. Then you can have as many as you like and they are very portable.

[Gary_G]

Thanks, Mike.

I wonder that no one else has tried this.

I see how this could be useful. I remember seeing an allusion to this possibility, when reading over the GEDCOM standard, but wasn't aware that FH7 allowed one to make use of it.

From what I see in the documentation, it looks as if it ought to be possible to use any note field, even that in the Repository. If so; the Repository Note field could then be used to hold the balance of the invariant "pseudo meta-fields" for data pertaining to a particular repository.

The net effect, if I understand the possibilities, is that only variable data meta-fields need to be set up in the source portion of the template body.

I think this shouldn't impact generating Record Titles, Footnotes or the Bibliography, as one would just substitute calls to the repository notes. Might require a bit of planning and work to populate the repository at first, but usually one uses the same repositories over and over. Queries might be another item that would be a little more work, but still possible with the correct calls. Publishing any templates would definitely need some accompanying documentation on what "pseudo meta-fields" to set up.

Even if some data is captured in the repository definitions, I assume that it has little impact on reports, backups and exporting data in GEDCOM format? Are there any caveats of which I should be aware?

[tatewise]

Even if some data is captured in the repository definitions, I assume that it has little impact on reports, backups and exporting data in GEDCOM format? Are there any caveats of which I should be aware?

Reports only display the Footnotes and Bibliography derived from the Format templates.
Backups include all Repository field text regardless.
Exporting GEDCOM will include all Repository field text regardless.
Remember there is nothing 'special' about labelled Note text. It is all just plain text and FH does not handle the metafield labels in any particular way except when you use the =GetLabelledText(...) function to extract a value entered against a label.

[Gary_G]

Mike;

To get the content of one of these pseudo meta-fields in the Notes of a repository, the following should work, but doesn't;
{=GetLabelledText(%SOUR.~RP-WRITERS_ORG>NOTE2%,"Private_Addresses: ")}

I have no issues using sensing he presence of my current privacy hashtag that I was using and that is in the same notes field using;
{=ContainsText(%SOUR.~RP-WRITERS_ORG>NOTE2%,"#PRIVATE_ADDRESSES")}

Do you see what I might be doing incorrectly?

[Gary_G]

Mike;

I figure it out. To use this technique, one needs to be careful when setting up the field tags. I will likely cut a copy of some standard tags into all my repository notes fields by using auto-text. That should help avoid any errors.

[AdrianBruce]

...
The key issue for most Lumpers is that almost every published citation standard includes a publication year or revision date in whatever term they use for a "Bibliography". Typically; that date is an abbreviated form of the date of publication or access that must occur in the full "Footnote". For a Lumper, especially with web sources, the access date is not always static over numerous references to a given source. So; that date must be placed in the invariant section that FH7 calls the "citation" portion and not the variable "source" portion of a template. Because CP does not currently allow "citation"-level data to be inserted into a "bibliography", Lumpers are having a rather difficult time conforming to the essentials of most citation standards.

I'm trying to understand the aspects here. If we are describing a Lumped Source, that has been accessed on multiple dates - what would the so-called Bibliography look like in such a case if the Bibliography format was supposed to include the access date (say)? Presumably there would be as many Bibliography entries as access dates to that source?

It would seem easy enough if the date in question was the publication date of a book, because there are only a small number of editions of each book. But for something like the 1901 Census for England & Wales on Ancestry, I would have many, many access dates. Is my so-called Bibliography really supposed to include several dozen entries for the 1901 Census for England & Wales on Ancestry, each differing only in the access date? Seems a remarkably inefficient use of "paper". (As I say, I'm trying to understand in case I'm missing something)

[Gary_G]

Adrian;

You're not missing anything. I tend to agree that the standards documents are anchored in the era of physical books. However; silly as it sounds, that is what the accepted citation standards expect one to do. I checked several of the mainstream ones again today.

I expect, if I pushed the authors a bit on the point, they would say that, of course, one would consolidate similar ones to a date range or comma delimited list before publishing. Well... it would be nice if they'd tell software writers that and things could be consolidated when generated. Note that software developers already consolidate similar citations, otherwise we'd have the same situation. As it stands, one has to do bibliographic consolidation manually.

That's not to say that the dates used shouldn't be reflected in the bibliography. The are actually there for a purpose. When a genealogical journal or club reviews ones work, they do so against the current standard. If you don't meet the standard, they won't accept your work. And I'm not talking about just commercial enterprises. So; we'll likely be stuck dealing with with manually consolidating the bibliography until the standards change.

[Gary_G]

Mike;

I'm trying to better integrate the GetLabelledText function into my template logic. However; it looks as if it's great for returning text, but one can't test the return for a specific value and perform a selection based on the request. Am I missing a text function or a template logic technique?

For example; the best way for me to check for a privacy flag being on and act on it is still to detect it in the following way;
<({=TextIf(ContainsText(%SOUR.~RP-WRITERS_ORG>NOTE2%,"Private_Addresses: On"),"[E-Address for private use]",TextPart(%SOUR.~RP-WRITERS_ORG>EMAIL%, 1))})>

If I wanted to just get the textual value for use in a string, the following works fine and returns, "On".
{=GetLabelledText(%SOUR.~RP-WRITERS_ORG>NOTE2%,"Private_Addresses: On")}

[AdrianBruce]

... I expect, if I pushed the authors a bit on the point, they would say that, of course, one would consolidate similar ones to a date range or comma delimited list before publishing. Well... it would be nice if they'd tell software writers that and things could be consolidated when generated.

Date range was what was passing through my inexpert head if that was indeed the situation.

"it would be nice if they'd tell software writers that" Yeah...

...
That's not to say that the dates used shouldn't be reflected in the bibliography. They are actually there for a purpose. When a genealogical journal or club reviews ones work, they do so against the current standard. If you don't meet the standard, they won't accept your work. ...

Yes, the checking against standards is the bit I tend to forget over in the UK. Rightly or wrongly, I don't recollect much consistency of citation standards over here.