* Key Repositories?
- tatewise
- Megastar
- Posts: 28410
- Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
- Contact:
Re: Key Repositories?
I think I was expecting a role for Author different from the organisation for Repository.
With some of your suggestions, the Author and Repository are the same.
Is it reasonable to say the Registrar General is the Author in chief who is responsible for all their staff?
To identify that a specific name should be used we can prefix a role/organisation with Name of.
Regarding Author Parish Register, the name of the Parish should be the Repository Local Church/Authority or perhaps Name of Local Church/Authority is clearer, so I thought Author should be the role Local Registrar?
With some of your suggestions, the Author and Repository are the same.
Is it reasonable to say the Registrar General is the Author in chief who is responsible for all their staff?
To identify that a specific name should be used we can prefix a role/organisation with Name of.
Regarding Author Parish Register, the name of the Parish should be the Repository Local Church/Authority or perhaps Name of Local Church/Authority is clearer, so I thought Author should be the role Local Registrar?
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
- AdrianBruce
- Megastar
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: South Cheshire
- Contact:
Re: Key Repositories?
Re the Author and Repository being the same. Well, yes. And under those circumstances, I would tend to omit one, so one way out would be to annotate these entries, saying that these are the same and suggesting that one of them might be omitted at the reader's discretion. (For instance, when talking about the IGI, I wouldn't have FamilySearch as both Author and Repository.) I couldn't specify which to omit as I like to record the Repository in order to use the Call reference subsidiary to that. Others may differ, so I feel uncomfortable specifying which to omit.tatewise wrote:I think I was expecting a role for Author different from the organisation for Repository.
With some of your suggestions, the Author and Repository are the same.
Is it reasonable to say the Registrar General is the Author in chief who is responsible for all their staff?
....
Certainly you could use Registrar General as the Author in this case - but aren't we just fiddling things?
Goodtatewise wrote:... To identify that a specific name should be used we can prefix a role/organisation with Name of....
There is no such role as Local Registrar in relation to Parish Registers - well, up north there isn't! If you wanted to go down that path then Parish Clerk might be better. Although I'm not too happy about that either, as I get the impression it might be anyone from the incumbent via a curate to a real clerk who put pen to paper. This is one of those instances where I feel I have to be awkward and point out that I don't get some of these issues because I set Repository to be the name of the web-site / archive holding the microfilm / archive holding the physical book so I don't see duplication when the Author is set to the originating parish. Which kind of harks back to your statement at the start "I think I was expecting a role for Author different from the organisation for Repository" - so do I, and some of this duplication is because we've misused, not to put too fine a point on it, the concept of Repository. I was trying to keep to the concept of where the original is and it's causing this duplication. (Some duplication would still occur with the GRO stuff, by the way).tatewise wrote:... Regarding Author Parish Register, the name of the Parish should be the Repository Local Church/Authority or perhaps Name of Local Church/Authority is clearer, so I thought Author should be the role Local Registrar?
Adrian
- LornaCraig
- Megastar
- Posts: 3201
- Joined: 11 Jan 2005 17:36
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Re: Key Repositories?
I think we are in danger of not seeing the wood for the trees.
We don't want new users to think they have to put something in every field. The key test is: If someone else looked at your research would they be able to understand how and where you found something?
With this in mind I think Repository is more important than Author. Personally I only use the Author field in the case of a book or personal journal/diary. I don't use it at all for any Census or BMD records. So in cases of duplication I would keep Repository and omit Author.
Of course these days we often don't need to go to a physical Repository, and the most useful information for another researcher will often be 'which website did you find it on?' So we have to shoe-horn that into the Gedcom structure somewhere (some of us use Publication Information, some use Repository, some use the Note, some put it in the Repository record itself...).
We don't want new users to think they have to put something in every field. The key test is: If someone else looked at your research would they be able to understand how and where you found something?
With this in mind I think Repository is more important than Author. Personally I only use the Author field in the case of a book or personal journal/diary. I don't use it at all for any Census or BMD records. So in cases of duplication I would keep Repository and omit Author.
Of course these days we often don't need to go to a physical Repository, and the most useful information for another researcher will often be 'which website did you find it on?' So we have to shoe-horn that into the Gedcom structure somewhere (some of us use Publication Information, some use Repository, some use the Note, some put it in the Repository record itself...).
Lorna
- tatewise
- Megastar
- Posts: 28410
- Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
- Contact:
Re: Key Repositories?
I have made another attempt at the research:document_repository_guidelines|> Document Repository Guidelines but still open to further refinements and suggestions that may even revert to some earlier alternatives.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
-
- Megastar
- Posts: 515
- Joined: 19 Nov 2014 17:52
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Corfu, Greece
- Contact:
Re: Key Repositories?
Must admit I have to go with Lorna on this " ....The key test is: If someone else looked at your research would they be able to understand how and where you found something?...". I primarily have FMP as a repository if that is where I obtained the transcript and / or image of the data I am using as a Source - I don't bother with an exact URL of the page as I have I found that these can change over time so just use the generic FMP "home page". Keep it simple but be able to easily identify where you found the information, or, in the case of physical sources (e.g. certificates, etc), who has them now (which is quite often "me"!)
Brent Tapscott ~ researching the Tapscott and Wallace family history
Tapscott & Wallace family tree
Tapscott & Wallace family tree
- LornaCraig
- Megastar
- Posts: 3201
- Joined: 11 Jan 2005 17:36
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Re: Key Repositories?
Mike,
Yes, I think it is best to leave the Author fields blank in many cases so I prefer the latest look.
Some official websites only add confusion instead of clarity. For example, the National Records of Scotland website says in one place, of the 1939 Register:
“At the outbreak of war in 1939 a register was compiled by the Registrar General of everybody living in the UK...”. (It’s not clear whether in the context we are supposed to assume this was a Registrar General for Scotland, or there was one Registrar General for the whole UK)
Then elsewhere it says
“In Scotland, the enumeration [of 1939 register] was carried out by the National Records of Scotland (NRS), because of its responsibility for the Census.”
But this is nonsensical because National Records of Scotland was not established until 1 April 2011, following the merger of the General Register Office for Scotland (GROS) and the National Archives of Scotland (NAS)!!!
If even the official custodians don't know who compiled something, how are we supposed to find out?
Yes, I think it is best to leave the Author fields blank in many cases so I prefer the latest look.
Some official websites only add confusion instead of clarity. For example, the National Records of Scotland website says in one place, of the 1939 Register:
“At the outbreak of war in 1939 a register was compiled by the Registrar General of everybody living in the UK...”. (It’s not clear whether in the context we are supposed to assume this was a Registrar General for Scotland, or there was one Registrar General for the whole UK)
Then elsewhere it says
“In Scotland, the enumeration [of 1939 register] was carried out by the National Records of Scotland (NRS), because of its responsibility for the Census.”
But this is nonsensical because National Records of Scotland was not established until 1 April 2011, following the merger of the General Register Office for Scotland (GROS) and the National Archives of Scotland (NAS)!!!
If even the official custodians don't know who compiled something, how are we supposed to find out?
Lorna
Re: Key Repositories?
One of the things I found when importing a database from RootsMagic was that whereas RM allows two repositories per source, the FH structure only seems to allow one. Since images of the English and Welsh censuses are currently available on both Ancestry and FindMyPast, it seems to me wrong to name only one of them as a repository. (Or if not wrong, incomplete - and possibly also confusing, because I may have got some of my data/images from one site and some from the other.) So I wonder if for these it is better to put the website somewhere other than the Repository record?LornaCraig wrote:Of course these days we often don't need to go to a physical Repository, and the most useful information for another researcher will often be 'which website did you find it on?' So we have to shoe-horn that into the Gedcom structure somewhere (some of us use Publication Information, some use Repository, some use the Note, some put it in the Repository record itself...).
Arthur
- LornaCraig
- Megastar
- Posts: 3201
- Joined: 11 Jan 2005 17:36
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Re: Key Repositories?
Arthur,
Yes, it's for this reason that I use the Repository field to record the physical repository (The National Archives, for England and Wales census) and I use the Publication Information field to show which website(s) I found the transcript and/or image on. I see the websites as the 'publishers' in the sense that they are making the information public. It's a pity the Gedcom standard was defined before online research took off, because we really need a standard field to record "which website we found it on".
Yes, it's for this reason that I use the Repository field to record the physical repository (The National Archives, for England and Wales census) and I use the Publication Information field to show which website(s) I found the transcript and/or image on. I see the websites as the 'publishers' in the sense that they are making the information public. It's a pity the Gedcom standard was defined before online research took off, because we really need a standard field to record "which website we found it on".
Lorna
-
- Gold
- Posts: 27
- Joined: 11 Feb 2004 22:37
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: York
- Contact:
Re: Key Repositories?
Hi Arthur, I to aim to use the repository field to identify (where known) the original document so that either I or someone picking-up my work can identify where the document is. Three examples: 1911 England Census, repository The National Archive; Photo of Mr & Mrs Smith, John Brown; Original birth certificate, Fred Brown. Where appropriate I record address and contact details on the repository Property Box.
I've settled for using publication or publisher for where I saw the source. So if I found the census record on FMP, FMP would be the publisher. Where I find a baptism in a transcription record, I would use the publisher of the transcription/book making a note if the book was then published on the web.
Kevin
I've settled for using publication or publisher for where I saw the source. So if I found the census record on FMP, FMP would be the publisher. Where I find a baptism in a transcription record, I would use the publisher of the transcription/book making a note if the book was then published on the web.
Kevin
Kevin Merrison - bonkers for Bilbo* https://bilbow.one-name.net/
- tatewise
- Megastar
- Posts: 28410
- Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
- Contact:
Re: Key Repositories?
Kevin, I concur with your ideas except for Birth Certificate.
Even though Fred Brown has his Birth Certificate, it is not an original, but a Certified Copy as it says at the top.
It is exactly the same as if you had purchased a copy using the fhugdownloads:contents:service_uk_gro_certificate_ordering|> Service ~ UK GRO Certificate Ordering, so the Repository is the General Register Office (England & Wales) that will be the same for all Copies of Birth/Marriage/Death Certificates including your own.
As you say, it is so someone picking up your work can identify where the original document is located, but they may not be able to retrieve that Birth Certificate from the Repository of Fred Brown, whereas they will get it from the General Register Office (England & Wales). So I advise you not to make Fred Brown a special case Repository.
On the other hand, if Fred Brown wrote his own biography, then he probably would be the Repository, unless he published it in a book, in which case it might be The British Library. But if it was a family Bible with hand written notes, then whoever holds the Bible will be the Repository.
Even though Fred Brown has his Birth Certificate, it is not an original, but a Certified Copy as it says at the top.
It is exactly the same as if you had purchased a copy using the fhugdownloads:contents:service_uk_gro_certificate_ordering|> Service ~ UK GRO Certificate Ordering, so the Repository is the General Register Office (England & Wales) that will be the same for all Copies of Birth/Marriage/Death Certificates including your own.
As you say, it is so someone picking up your work can identify where the original document is located, but they may not be able to retrieve that Birth Certificate from the Repository of Fred Brown, whereas they will get it from the General Register Office (England & Wales). So I advise you not to make Fred Brown a special case Repository.
On the other hand, if Fred Brown wrote his own biography, then he probably would be the Repository, unless he published it in a book, in which case it might be The British Library. But if it was a family Bible with hand written notes, then whoever holds the Bible will be the Repository.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
Re: Key Repositories?
I've had a couple more thoughts which may or may not take the discussion further.
First, with BMD certificates, it's possible to obtain these from local register offices as well as the GRO. The GRO work from copies sent to them from the local register offices, so it might be possible to argue that the real repositories are the dozens of register offices around the country. And these get reorganised from time to time...
Second, I wonder if anything is to be gained from thinking about the distinction there used to be (less so now, I suspect) between county Archives and Local Studies Libraries. Generally speaking, archives hold original documents, and libraries may hold printed or published copies of them, as well as other books. A single historic document can only be in one place, but a published work might be found in lots of libraries. Clearly, Archives are Repositories, but where a work has been published, is Repository actually relevant, or is the publication data enough to identify it?
Re-reading some of the posts so far, I'm not sure whether this adds to the discussion, but here it is anyway just in case.
Arthur
First, with BMD certificates, it's possible to obtain these from local register offices as well as the GRO. The GRO work from copies sent to them from the local register offices, so it might be possible to argue that the real repositories are the dozens of register offices around the country. And these get reorganised from time to time...
Second, I wonder if anything is to be gained from thinking about the distinction there used to be (less so now, I suspect) between county Archives and Local Studies Libraries. Generally speaking, archives hold original documents, and libraries may hold printed or published copies of them, as well as other books. A single historic document can only be in one place, but a published work might be found in lots of libraries. Clearly, Archives are Repositories, but where a work has been published, is Repository actually relevant, or is the publication data enough to identify it?
Re-reading some of the posts so far, I'm not sure whether this adds to the discussion, but here it is anyway just in case.
Arthur
- AdrianBruce
- Megastar
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: South Cheshire
- Contact:
Re: Key Repositories?
The point of a Repository is to tell people - if necessary - where you got your info from. So there's no such thing as a "real" Repository. If you got your copy from the local Superintendent Registrar, then their office is the Repository. If you got it from the GRO, then that's the Repository.arthurk wrote:... First, with BMD certificates, it's possible to obtain these from local register offices as well as the GRO. The GRO work from copies sent to them from the local register offices, so it might be possible to argue that the real repositories are the dozens of register offices around the country. ...
It's actually an important point. If it's a published work, who cares where you got your copy from? (In the nicest possible way!) I'll go to my local big library or Amazon or... So leave the Repository blank. Although, if it's a book published in the 1840s (say) and you had to go the British Library to read it, then record the BL as Repository.arthurk wrote:... where a work has been published, is Repository actually relevant, or is the publication data enough to identify it? ....
Adrian
- AdrianBruce
- Megastar
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: South Cheshire
- Contact:
Re: Key Repositories?
Again, this seems to be at cross-purposes with the idea of a Repository. If you are going to use the Repository for the web-site, then you only need record where you found your copy. Telling people that "Other Repositories are available such as FMP, TheGenealogist..." etc, is really not your responsibility. Not to mention a never ending task as the stuff gets released elsewhere....arthurk wrote:... RM allows two repositories per source, the FH structure only seems to allow one. Since images of the English and Welsh censuses are currently available on both Ancestry and FindMyPast, it seems to me wrong to name only one of them as a repository. ...
Having said all that .... If you use "Method 2", as well call it, and have a single source for "1851 Census", say, then multiple Repositories for your own data is perfectly possible. Yuk. In that case, I'd actually create 2 source records, one for 1851 census on Ancestry and the other for the 1851 census on FMP.
Adrian
- AdrianBruce
- Megastar
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: South Cheshire
- Contact:
Re: Key Repositories?
Absolutely! It does make you wonder sometimes....LornaCraig wrote:.... this is nonsensical because National Records of Scotland was not established until 1 April 2011, following the merger of the General Register Office for Scotland (GROS) and the National Archives of Scotland (NAS)!!!...
Mmm. I was thinking about this thread earlier today - and several thoughts popped into my head - one of which was "Keep your eye on the b****y road, you fool!".LornaCraig wrote:I think we are in danger of not seeing the wood for the trees. ...
I think my major problem with the Document Repository Guidelines is that (and I apologise for the criticism of work done by others) - it omits the Publication data. If that were visible, then we might find it easier to say,"We don't need the web-site name here, because it's already there." Certainly, I suspect one or two of my comments above would be different if the Publication data were there.
So - quite what is the KB Item Document Repository Guidelines supposed to be about? If it's just about Repositories, then let's remove the Authors and the Document types except as examples to illustrate what we're talking about. And let's throw in examples to remind ourselves that Repository might not be necessary - e.g. reasonably recently published books, or if the web-site name already appears in the Publication data.
But if the KB Item is about Author, Publication and Repository, then I worry that we're trying to start a UK version of Evidence Explained....
Another point of concern is this idea that the Repository is used to record where the originals are. This is a touch idiosyncratic. If we look at images on a web-site, then the source of the source is important. Absolutely. But there are several ways of doing it. If we can back off and just record sample Repositories, then we could skate over this. And, to repeat an earlier point - sometimes we actually don't know where the originals are!
The point is that there are several ways of completing the data in a Source-Record - if we're not careful, we might end up writing a big KB item that satisfies only one way.
Please don't think I'm being unhelpful - it's just that this has a horrible feeling of being an iceberg ahead, when perhaps we only wanted some ice in our drinks.
Adrian
-
- Gold
- Posts: 27
- Joined: 11 Feb 2004 22:37
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: York
- Contact:
Re: Key Repositories?
Hi, have confidently tidied up the repositories for my census types/sources, but looking at the discussion now I'm not so sure about the certificates originals, original copies, copies of originals and copies of copies?
I'll try Birth certificates (England) first:
I have a copy from Southport of my birth certificate; I recorded repository as GRO (England & Wales) Southport.
I have the original certificate of birth for my son; I recorded repository, my home.
I have an original certified copy of an entry for my son, issued with the certificate of birth; I recorded repository, my home.
I have a copy (digital) of my fathers original birth certificate; I recorded repository, my fathers home and would have amended to my home if it came to me.
I have a copy (digital) of a copy from Southport of my grandfathers birth certificate; I recorded repository, my fathers home and would have amended to my home if it came to me.
Following the discussion now I'm not so sure.
We seem to be saying that the original is with the Local Superintendent Registrar, and link all copies to the repository as GRO.
To try and help get my head around this I've recalled registering the birth of my son and dug out various certificates and had a look at the wording. The original Certificate of Birth for my son, was issued a couple of weeks after the actual birth when I took a slip of paper from the hospital (cannot remember what the slip of paper was called) to the local register office to the hospital where we were staying, a different District to where we lived. I received two documents: A Certificate of Birth, it's like a short certificate, no details of parents just a birth date and place, an excerpt of the wording is 'do hereby certify that the above particulars have been compiled from an entry in a register in my custody' and a CERTIFIED COPY of an ENTRY OF BIRTH, wording is 'Certified to be a true copy of an entry in a register in my custody'.
Looking at a copy of a birth certificate from GRO Southport we have Title CERTIFIED COPY OF AN ENTRY OF BIRTH GIVEN AT THE GENERAL REGISTER OFFICE, wording is CERTIFIED to be a true copy of an entry in the certified copy of a Register of Births in the District above mentioned.
Now I nearly gave up at this point, thinking so what, what does it matter, but I think there is something to tease out here:
For my sons certificates, the Superintendent Registrar (District) holds the original register and presumably the slip of paper I had from the hospital. He/she/it/they issued me a Certificate of birth and Certified Copy of and Entry of Birth. Dare I say the local Superintendent Registrar was the Author of both the Certificate of Birth and Certified Copy of an Entry, the Repository (Building) for both is me/my home.
For the copies from GRO Southport I note that their register is a copy of the local register (chance for transcriptions errors maybe) and the General Register Office has issued a Copy of and entry in a copy of the register. Again I'm tempted to say the General Register Office is the AUTHOR of this Certified Copy of an Entry of Birth, the Repository (Building) is me/my home.
For Certificates held by others, Birth Certificates or Certified copies from the Superintendent Registrar (District) or General Register Office, the Author would be as above, but because these documents are held by Mr Brown, then the repository (building) is Mr Brown and his address?
To summarise my thinking:
District Birth Register - Author, Superintendent Registrar (District); Repository, Superintendent Registrar (District)
Copy of District Birth Register - Author, GRO; Repository, GRO.
Civil Registration Index of births - Author, GRO; Repository, GRO (of course there are other repositories and it has been published? by FreeBMD and many more)
Certificate of Birth - Author, Superintendent Registrar (District); Repository......whom ever has it
Certified Copy of an Entry of Birth signed of by Superintendent Registrar - Author, Superintendent Registrar (District); Repository......whom ever has it
Certified Copy of an Entry of birth Given At The General Register Office - Author, GRO; Repository......whom ever has it
The key for me is trying to understand if it is correct that the authorities only have a register and understanding the difference between a Certificate of Birth, a Certified copy of an entry (District) and a Certified Copy of an Entry, GRO.
Does it matter? For some maybe not, but I think it is worth while acknowledging the difference between a Certificate of Birth or Certified Copy of an Entry, issued close to the birth date to the parents from the District office; and a certified copy, of a copy of a register, issued to a genealogist many years later, as there is more room for error on the later.
I'll look at marriages in similar way, thankfully haven't registered a death so maybe someone else is as mad as I and can give it a look.
When I look over the outcome above it works for me as it tells me what the document is, a register, copy of of a register, index, copy of an entry or a Birth Certificate and most importantly who has it. Of course I also use publication details to record where I've seen it.
No idea just how complicated this was going to get when starting this thread, but the mist is clearing.
I'll try Birth certificates (England) first:
I have a copy from Southport of my birth certificate; I recorded repository as GRO (England & Wales) Southport.
I have the original certificate of birth for my son; I recorded repository, my home.
I have an original certified copy of an entry for my son, issued with the certificate of birth; I recorded repository, my home.
I have a copy (digital) of my fathers original birth certificate; I recorded repository, my fathers home and would have amended to my home if it came to me.
I have a copy (digital) of a copy from Southport of my grandfathers birth certificate; I recorded repository, my fathers home and would have amended to my home if it came to me.
Following the discussion now I'm not so sure.
We seem to be saying that the original is with the Local Superintendent Registrar, and link all copies to the repository as GRO.
To try and help get my head around this I've recalled registering the birth of my son and dug out various certificates and had a look at the wording. The original Certificate of Birth for my son, was issued a couple of weeks after the actual birth when I took a slip of paper from the hospital (cannot remember what the slip of paper was called) to the local register office to the hospital where we were staying, a different District to where we lived. I received two documents: A Certificate of Birth, it's like a short certificate, no details of parents just a birth date and place, an excerpt of the wording is 'do hereby certify that the above particulars have been compiled from an entry in a register in my custody' and a CERTIFIED COPY of an ENTRY OF BIRTH, wording is 'Certified to be a true copy of an entry in a register in my custody'.
Looking at a copy of a birth certificate from GRO Southport we have Title CERTIFIED COPY OF AN ENTRY OF BIRTH GIVEN AT THE GENERAL REGISTER OFFICE, wording is CERTIFIED to be a true copy of an entry in the certified copy of a Register of Births in the District above mentioned.
Now I nearly gave up at this point, thinking so what, what does it matter, but I think there is something to tease out here:
For my sons certificates, the Superintendent Registrar (District) holds the original register and presumably the slip of paper I had from the hospital. He/she/it/they issued me a Certificate of birth and Certified Copy of and Entry of Birth. Dare I say the local Superintendent Registrar was the Author of both the Certificate of Birth and Certified Copy of an Entry, the Repository (Building) for both is me/my home.
For the copies from GRO Southport I note that their register is a copy of the local register (chance for transcriptions errors maybe) and the General Register Office has issued a Copy of and entry in a copy of the register. Again I'm tempted to say the General Register Office is the AUTHOR of this Certified Copy of an Entry of Birth, the Repository (Building) is me/my home.
For Certificates held by others, Birth Certificates or Certified copies from the Superintendent Registrar (District) or General Register Office, the Author would be as above, but because these documents are held by Mr Brown, then the repository (building) is Mr Brown and his address?
To summarise my thinking:
District Birth Register - Author, Superintendent Registrar (District); Repository, Superintendent Registrar (District)
Copy of District Birth Register - Author, GRO; Repository, GRO.
Civil Registration Index of births - Author, GRO; Repository, GRO (of course there are other repositories and it has been published? by FreeBMD and many more)
Certificate of Birth - Author, Superintendent Registrar (District); Repository......whom ever has it
Certified Copy of an Entry of Birth signed of by Superintendent Registrar - Author, Superintendent Registrar (District); Repository......whom ever has it
Certified Copy of an Entry of birth Given At The General Register Office - Author, GRO; Repository......whom ever has it
The key for me is trying to understand if it is correct that the authorities only have a register and understanding the difference between a Certificate of Birth, a Certified copy of an entry (District) and a Certified Copy of an Entry, GRO.
Does it matter? For some maybe not, but I think it is worth while acknowledging the difference between a Certificate of Birth or Certified Copy of an Entry, issued close to the birth date to the parents from the District office; and a certified copy, of a copy of a register, issued to a genealogist many years later, as there is more room for error on the later.
I'll look at marriages in similar way, thankfully haven't registered a death so maybe someone else is as mad as I and can give it a look.
When I look over the outcome above it works for me as it tells me what the document is, a register, copy of of a register, index, copy of an entry or a Birth Certificate and most importantly who has it. Of course I also use publication details to record where I've seen it.
No idea just how complicated this was going to get when starting this thread, but the mist is clearing.
Kevin Merrison - bonkers for Bilbo* https://bilbow.one-name.net/
- tatewise
- Megastar
- Posts: 28410
- Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
- Contact:
Re: Key Repositories?
Without going into the fine details, the main difference between a Certificate of Birth and a Certified Copy of an Entry of Birth is their cost and the amount of details.
See Certificate of registry of birth (13687) that explains a bit more about the different documents, and may be worth summarising in the Document Repository Guidelines with images?
In all cases however, I believe, the original details are with the local Register Office or the GRO.
However, a key point being discussed is whether a Repository should identify where you obtained a document, or where others can obtain the document, or both.
BTW: The research:document_repository_guidelines|> Document Repository Guidelines can offer whatever advice 'we' decide is best, or it can be scrapped as worthless. I anticipated it was intended to help newcomers get started without necessarily going into too much fine detail. It is in danger of giving too many options and getting into the Source Method 1 versus Source Method 2 type of dialogue.
See Certificate of registry of birth (13687) that explains a bit more about the different documents, and may be worth summarising in the Document Repository Guidelines with images?
In all cases however, I believe, the original details are with the local Register Office or the GRO.
However, a key point being discussed is whether a Repository should identify where you obtained a document, or where others can obtain the document, or both.
BTW: The research:document_repository_guidelines|> Document Repository Guidelines can offer whatever advice 'we' decide is best, or it can be scrapped as worthless. I anticipated it was intended to help newcomers get started without necessarily going into too much fine detail. It is in danger of giving too many options and getting into the Source Method 1 versus Source Method 2 type of dialogue.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
- ColeValleyGirl
- Megastar
- Posts: 5499
- Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
- Contact:
Re: Key Repositories?
Well said, that man!But if the KB Item is about Author, Publication and Repository, then I worry that we're trying to start a UK version of Evidence Explained....
Helen Wright
ColeValleyGirl's family history
ColeValleyGirl's family history
- LornaCraig
- Megastar
- Posts: 3201
- Joined: 11 Jan 2005 17:36
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Re: Key Repositories?
I'd be happy to go with Adrian's idea of giving a few examples and leaving it at that. Setting things out in tabular form gives a false impression of rigidity . Just emphasise the importance of including enough detail in the source record to enable someone else to understand where the information came from, so that they could find it themselves.
Lorna
Re: Key Repositories?
I totally agree with this.ColeValleyGirl wrote:Well said, that man!But if the KB Item is about Author, Publication and Repository, then I worry that we're trying to start a UK version of Evidence Explained....
One of the things that attracted me to FH was that it wasn't forever pushing over-complicated source templates, where you spend longer deciding which of dozens (hundreds?) of categories and subcategories something belongs to than it takes to just type it in.
If you're planning on submitting articles to learned journals, there may be some point in a tool which helps you arrange things according to their house style, but how many of us do that? For my purposes I like things to be clear but reasonably concise and consistent, and with no unnecessary repetition. In other words, enough to help me to remember exactly where information comes from, and to help others to find and check it. Sometimes filling all the fields helps with that; often it's unnecessary.
Arthur
- ColeValleyGirl
- Megastar
- Posts: 5499
- Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
- Contact:
Re: Key Repositories?
To be clear, I construct my long source title according to Evidence Explained (modified as necessary for practicality and/or local quirks) so don't use any of the limited fields provided in the GEDcom standard (and thus FH) for Repository, Author, Publication Info -- all of that goes in the long title (including for example exactly which website provided a census image and from where they claim to have acquired it; so I'm not criticising the Evidence Explained approach -- far from it. What I was questioning was whether this FH user group is the right venue to attempt to construct a comprehensive guide to the Author, Publication Info and Repositories for common UK sources when the landscape changes so frequently in terms of websites providing etc...
Helen Wright
ColeValleyGirl's family history
ColeValleyGirl's family history
Re: Key Repositories?
Sorry, Helen, I misunderstood you then. But I'm afraid I really balk at the kind of thing that Evidence Explained leads to.
For example, RootsMagic, which has adopted this approach, offers no less than 10 templates for Cemetery Records. Under "Cemetery Records" are:
Sorry, but life's too short.
Arthur
For example, RootsMagic, which has adopted this approach, offers no less than 10 templates for Cemetery Records. Under "Cemetery Records" are:
- Abstracts (card file)
Abstracts (vertical file)
Compiled (online database)
Compiled (published)
Compiled (typescripts)
- (emphasis on single register) (FHL-GSU film)
(emphasis on whole series) (FHL-GSU film)
(online images)
(personally used)
(supplied by staff)
Sorry, but life's too short.
Arthur
- ColeValleyGirl
- Megastar
- Posts: 5499
- Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
- Contact:
Re: Key Repositories?
Each to her own... but it sounds like Rootsmagic has provided templates without any guidance (which is a recipe for disaster! or at the least turning people off the approach). Have you read the book? Or looked at Shown Mills' website: https://www.evidenceexplained.com/? The two most important chapters in the book are 1: Fundamentals of Evidence Analysis and 2: Fundamentals of Citation. If you could read those, you might understand why the templates vary and how to apply them with the minimum (yes!) of effort.Sorry, but life's too short.
https://www.evidenceexplained.com/quick ... -road-maps is worth a review if you want the basics of why good citations matter, and so is https://www.evidenceexplained.com/conte ... e-do-i-use but all of the quicktips and quicklessons are worth the investment of time even if you're not going to adopt the templates, and you can get some of the book content there, if you have time to look.
I don't follow it slavishly, but I do try to apply the key principles. Others try to follow it more closely, or don't use it at all. So I'm circling back to 'each to her own'''...
Helen Wright
ColeValleyGirl's family history
ColeValleyGirl's family history
- AdrianBruce
- Megastar
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: South Cheshire
- Contact:
Re: Key Repositories?
Then it's kind of worth it. I always find that I have to go deeper than I want to understand something, then I can come back a couple of levels higher (back towards sanity perhaps).kevinmerrison wrote:... No idea just how complicated this was going to get when starting this thread, but the mist is clearing.
Just to try and comments on one or two things:
Repository being yourname or yourhome. There will be plenty of occasions when that is right - e.g. family relics, medals, photos. However, in other cases, it smacks of taking it a bit far. After all, if I were to want a copy of your BC, I'd send off to the GRO, so knowing you possess the copy of your own BC is not hugely relevant. (Knowing that you've seen it, on the other hand is important - it's just its current location isn't that important.)
What I tend to do is put rather more in the Publication information. So for a copy from the GRO, I have (in one example)
Author: General Register Office (England & Wales)
Publication: This is a certified facsimile copy, made 26 February 2013
Repository: General Register Office (England & Wales)
Call: 1906 Q3, Chorlton District, Vol 8c, p.879
Notice that at no point do I mention which house contains the resulting certificate. I don't think it adds anything.
The example above repeats the "GRO" stuff - I could leave it in Author and omit it from Repository but then where would I put the reference data? (Well, in the Title is yet another option).
Conversely, I could leave the "GRO" in Repository and omit it from the Author. But I tend to run queries on Author so I don't like that.
I'm not trying to baffle or bamboozle, simply show what the options are and emphasise that different people will come up with different solutions according to their own personal preferences.
Similarly, in the case of your father's original BC, I'd not bother with saying that it's at his house. It is definitely worth mentioning that it's a copy from the local registrar. In that case, I'd put something like:
Author: Register Office (Nantwich Registration District)
Publication: This is the certified copy, made 1 February 1927, provided to his parents
Note 1 - I will tend to write more in the publication data than some people. That's because I think it's important to record how the thing was created - is it a handwritten copy (subject to errors) or a photocopy? The sort of questions you seem to be considering yourself.
Note 2 - I omit the Repository - I have no need for it, as I don't know the local office's reference number. I could probably agonise over the format of the Author and write a different one next time, but it's something like that.
Now, here's an interesting bit. Suppose you took your scan and sent it to someone else. What should they record as their source? There are 2 conflicting aspects:
(1) you've seen the original because you scanned it but they've only seen the scan
(2) a scan really, really ought to be as good as the original.
What I do in a case like this (and this isn't theory, this is what ScotlandsPeople certificates are - scans) is to record the whole thing as if it were the original but tweak the Publication data to show what's going on. Thus:
Author: Register Office (Nantwich Registration District)
Publication: Supplied by B Baggins dd/mm/yyyy, scan of his father's certified copy, made 1 February 1927, provided to his father's parents
Feel free to shuffle words around, but that shows they've used the scan and also (see "his father's") explains how you got access to the scan.
Adrian
Re: Key Repositories?
There may be some guidance somewhere, but I started out with free-form sources and (from memory) when the templates were first offered it didn't look as though it was going to be possible to convert mine to templated forms without setting up each one from scratch and replacing every citation. My own citations have always worked well enough for me, and that's all I ask.ColeValleyGirl wrote:Each to her own... but it sounds like Rootsmagic has provided templates without any guidance (which is a recipe for disaster! or at the least turning people off the approach).Sorry, but life's too short.
No, I haven't read the book - the thought of 800+ pages on how to document sources is itself rather a turn-off. However, I have looked at the sections you linked to.Have you read the book? Or looked at Shown Mills' website: https://www.evidenceexplained.com/? The two most important chapters in the book are 1: Fundamentals of Evidence Analysis and 2: Fundamentals of Citation. If you could read those, you might understand why the templates vary and how to apply them with the minimum (yes!) of effort.
https://www.evidenceexplained.com/quick ... -road-maps is worth a review if you want the basics of why good citations matter, and so is https://www.evidenceexplained.com/conte ... e-do-i-use but all of the quicktips and quicklessons are worth the investment of time even if you're not going to adopt the templates, and you can get some of the book content there, if you have time to look.
From these, it seems that the author's point is not so much about which template to use as the need to evaluate evidence. I agree that this is vitally important, and it may be that some people find the templates useful when doing this. However, I do wonder if there is a danger that concentrating too much on the format of the source record (what goes where etc) may divert attention from the assessment of the source's reliability.
I'll admit that she makes some good points, but I still wonder if in the end it all becomes a bit too fussy for most of us.
Arthur
-
- Gold
- Posts: 27
- Joined: 11 Feb 2004 22:37
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: York
- Contact:
Re: Key Repositories?
Well that's another doc to read, thank you for the reference to https://www.evidenceexplained.com/.
I'm also of the opinion our Knowledge Base for Document Repository Guidelines (Yes I do think its worth having one) should be a guide and no more. Who is the guide for? Beginners? Well it could be beginners to Family History and if they are then it shouldn't blow their minds, but may I suggest it be aimed at either beginners to FH or beginners to using the Repository Property Box in FH. Any link back to GEDCOM field definition may be worth including. It may already be a bit too long (maybe it needs to get big and then slim down, a little more evolution if you like), but there is an appeal to including examples from different countries.
I found when describing the topic of repositories I needed to start with a tangible document, like the census or a certificate or a book and then talk through the Source PB and end at the Repository PB. If I skipped Author and Publication fields, we went around in circles, so maybe the same happening here. Of course we are not trying to tell anyone what to put where, but offer a way ahead that should support their research efforts and best practice, take account of the internet of things and not need significant amendment at a later date.
Is it possible to easily explain the use of the Repositories PB, without including the Source PB? Maybe not. If we are trying to explain/guide how to record where we got our information, maybe both PBs need to be included in one guide showing just a few examples. We could stick to the examples we are comfortable with, the censuses and Boyd's marriage Index for example. These plus a couple of examples of either hatch, match or dispatch could be enough.
Should there be a reference to AS toward the end of the guide, but as AS only fills fields on the Source PB, maybe just a mention that it can link to the repository and carry it over?
I'm also of the opinion our Knowledge Base for Document Repository Guidelines (Yes I do think its worth having one) should be a guide and no more. Who is the guide for? Beginners? Well it could be beginners to Family History and if they are then it shouldn't blow their minds, but may I suggest it be aimed at either beginners to FH or beginners to using the Repository Property Box in FH. Any link back to GEDCOM field definition may be worth including. It may already be a bit too long (maybe it needs to get big and then slim down, a little more evolution if you like), but there is an appeal to including examples from different countries.
I found when describing the topic of repositories I needed to start with a tangible document, like the census or a certificate or a book and then talk through the Source PB and end at the Repository PB. If I skipped Author and Publication fields, we went around in circles, so maybe the same happening here. Of course we are not trying to tell anyone what to put where, but offer a way ahead that should support their research efforts and best practice, take account of the internet of things and not need significant amendment at a later date.
Is it possible to easily explain the use of the Repositories PB, without including the Source PB? Maybe not. If we are trying to explain/guide how to record where we got our information, maybe both PBs need to be included in one guide showing just a few examples. We could stick to the examples we are comfortable with, the censuses and Boyd's marriage Index for example. These plus a couple of examples of either hatch, match or dispatch could be enough.
Should there be a reference to AS toward the end of the guide, but as AS only fills fields on the Source PB, maybe just a mention that it can link to the repository and carry it over?
Kevin Merrison - bonkers for Bilbo* https://bilbow.one-name.net/