* Help Understanding Sources in FH

Questions regarding use of any Version of Family Historian. Please ensure you have set your Version of Family Historian in your Profile
User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1444
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Help Understanding Sources in FH

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 03 Dec 2019 18:04

If you mean multi-layered citations aka source of a source, yes, I already use them.

User avatar
davidf
Famous
Posts: 234
Joined: 17 Jan 2009 19:14
Family Historian: V6.2

Re: Help Understanding Sources in FH

Post by davidf » 03 Dec 2019 18:44

ColeValleyGirl wrote:
03 Dec 2019 17:59
David, the are three places you can add media associated with a fact, a citation and its source.
...
3. To the fact -- could be used for e.g. an image of the church where an event took place -- I'm not sure I'd use this for anything source or citation related.
...
I wondered about that before sticking my neck out and possibly provocatively saying we could (optionally) do away with fact media.

I thought first, you can add media to Places but you can't add them to addresses, so Church photos can't necessarily be added there because the Place can apply to multiple locations, Houses in Census records, Workplaces in Occupations etc.

But thinking more fundamentally every photo has a source. Either from a photo collection with licensing restrictions or specifically taken by a photographer? So (Lumper) Sources might be: Getty Images, Church Website, AN Other (photographer - amateur or professional), John and Jane's Wedding Photo Album, etc. (with appropriate citation), or for Splitters the specific authorship, rights etc are part of the specific source record for that photo?
David
Running FH 6.2.7. Under Wine on Linux (Lubuntu 18.04 LTS)

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1444
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Help Understanding Sources in FH

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 03 Dec 2019 19:05

Yes, David, but there are different places you can display different media -- in a report, you can choose to have the Fact Media in a different place from Source or Citation Media -- or to display one type but not the other. I don't display Source media (for copyright/terms of service reasons) but I could still choose to display Fact media (not that I use it very often).

What we have as always in FH is more ways of working than you can shake a stick at.

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 16858
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Help Understanding Sources in FH

Post by tatewise » 03 Dec 2019 19:41

So recapping and simplifying...

FH is very good at providing the answer to "Where did you get that information?"
It can do that both on screen and in Reports with many Source Citation styles.

What it is less good at is adhering to a formally defined style such as Evidence Explained to answer the question.
In particular, you need to use some ingenuity to produce a formal bibliography separate from the Source Citations.
As I see it, that is the only 'hack' that may be required, and perhaps FH V7 will offer a viable solution.
But that will only happen if the developers are familiar with the concepts discussed here - don't hold your breath :D
It might be possible to influence things during beta testing that may start in the new year.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1444
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Help Understanding Sources in FH

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 03 Dec 2019 20:12

Jane wrote:
30 Nov 2019 09:34
V7 will gain source templates, bibliographies and source templates similar to those you are used to, but with the added flexibility which FH includes as standard. Adding "sentence" like construction to producing citations and other entries.
And I'm certain the developers are familiar with the concept, especially the people developing the initial sets of templates -- I don't think Simon would launch something as important as this half-cocked.

I would however be very surprised if there was scope to change much in the beta testing, given the enormity of what's been trailed as coming; it's the sort of root-and-branch change that doesn't gt adjusted on the fly (at least not by professionals like Simon).

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 16858
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Help Understanding Sources in FH

Post by tatewise » 03 Dec 2019 20:46

I really do hope you are correct.
If I recall correctly, previous FH beta testing sessions (years ago) did result in some significant adjustments.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 867
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Help Understanding Sources in FH

Post by AdrianBruce » 03 Dec 2019 21:58

davidf wrote:
03 Dec 2019 17:43
... For Lumpers the Title Field of the Source holds the unique common name of "the source" - which as a lumper is usually some form of "collection" - ...
Thank you for the reference to "collection". Though I'm a splitter myself, I get frustrated when "lumpers" can't explain their own concepts. This links to the infernal concept of Master Source from FTM - whenever 95% of "lumpers" try to explain Master Source, they fail dismally, as I've said, leaving me baffled as to what they're talking about. However, it actually works excellently if Master Source in FTM is explained as a "Collection" in the real world. Of course, if you look at the TNA Catalogue, you swiftly find multiple levels of collection, but we'll let that pass.

Just as an aside, two things drove me to be a splitter. I was initially inclined to "one physical object = one source record" (this was back in the days of PAF), which would probably have meant me lumping parish register entries all as one source record per register book and citing the reference number in the book as a "where within". But conversely a marriage certificate that I'd sent away for was one physical object so one source record on its own. That lead me to think some marriages (from the GRO) would have their own source record and some (from microfilms) would be "inside" other source records. That sounded discordant to me.

The crucial factor though, is that I write several paragraphs explaining why I think that this census schedule (say) is the right one for my family. If I have one census schedule per source record, that explanation is written once and kept in one place - on the source record. If the entire 1851 census (say) is one source record, then that explanation is pushed "down" into each citation resulting in the explanation being kept in a dozen or more places. Of course, that's not a problem when it's being created - it's what copy and paste are for. It's when I come to revise the explanation because I've found adjustments to my logic are necessary, that it gets a pain in the posterior. (And yes, I have needed to expand explanations - like when I found 2 visitors were actually 2 sisters...) I think that it would be possible to get round my objection by attaching Note Records to citations????? Or even in other places entirely.

It's all up to everyone - I'm only saying this in the hope of spreading understanding - after all, like most splitters, I lump things like FreeBMD as one source record - because the explanation payload is usually so light and appears in just 1 or 2 citations.
Adrian

User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 867
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Help Understanding Sources in FH

Post by AdrianBruce » 03 Dec 2019 22:07

USMC7312 wrote:
03 Dec 2019 16:59
... I must admit though that I find myself shocked that FH (and many other genealogy apps) fail to be able to capture the necessary data to present a bibliography (Source list), and citations (First and Subsequent). ...
Well, we may work differently but I agree and am crossing my fingers and anything else it's safe to, that FM v7 can take a major leap towards the sort of citations, foot / end notes, bibliographies, etc., that software like RM can provide.
Adrian

User avatar
davidf
Famous
Posts: 234
Joined: 17 Jan 2009 19:14
Family Historian: V6.2

Re: Help Understanding Sources in FH

Post by davidf » 03 Dec 2019 23:04

AdrianBruce wrote:
03 Dec 2019 21:58
davidf wrote:
03 Dec 2019 17:43
... For Lumpers the Title Field of the Source holds the unique common name of "the source" - which as a lumper is usually some form of "collection" - ...
Thank you for the reference to "collection". ... Of course, if you look at the TNA Catalogue, you swiftly find multiple levels of collection, but we'll let that pass.

Just as an aside, two things drove me to be a splitter. I was initially inclined to "one physical object = one source record" (this was back in the days of PAF), which would probably have meant me lumping parish register entries all as one source record per register book and citing the reference number in the book as a "where within". But conversely a marriage certificate that I'd sent away for was one physical object so one source record on its own. That lead me to think some marriages (from the GRO) would have their own source record and some (from microfilms) would be "inside" other source records. That sounded discordant to me.
Further about "Collections".

I think there is a workflow issue here. (To me) there are (very) broadly two workflows in genealogy.

The First is to "grow your tree".

You look to find close relatives of someone by looking for a specific name (on or off line); you find a "record" and if you are lucky it contains other corroborating information that allows you to be certain that you have the right record. That record then to some (particularly splitters) is logically "the source". The "Collection" it is found in is secondary - you record it to document your sources.

The second is "source examination"

In this approach you take a "Collection" and see what it tells you. The Collection is what you work with and to me is therefore "my source".

For example
  • I was sent a draft of a booklet on Monumental Inscriptions in a close group of parishes in North Cumberland. I worked with this "Collection" to look for possible family members (and hit gold on the first page - with the inscription providing corroborating evidence). The source was the draft booklet; the citation involved "Page Number and Parish: Grave Reference".
  • Yet I also treat "Billion Graves.com" as "a collection"; I will work with it to try and find family records - usually filtering by County - but the County is part of the citation not the reason to create multiple county by county BillionGraves.com sources. (I don't trust Billion Graves not to change their internal numbering, so use Address of Cemetery as part of my citation.)
  • Within the National Archives there are, as you say, sub collections (and sub sub sub etc.) which is why I referred to the "box" (sometimes boxes) which is the "collection" that I am working with. So
    • The War Diary for a Particular Battalion will be "a collection" that I work with (because I know my grandfather served with that battalion and that is the source for my information about his service with them).
    • Likewise his service file (a manila file that has been unfortunately subject to possibly two fillitings) is the "collection" of documents (enlistment, transfer, sickness records, Letters from my Great Grandfather-in-law to the Military Secretary (and the replies) etc.) form a collection that is of interest to me so WO 339/48300 is "the collection" (and source). I will read it in detail, ponder individual parts of it but in context.
    • If I was researching "Junior officers of WW1" my source ("the collection from which I got my information") might be WO 339 / WO 374 (The National Archives might see the records for Regulars and Territorials as distinct because administratively they were - but for such a wide subject I might treat the two as one "Collection" (The source for service file information on Junior Officers). I would be looking for essentially similar information for each officer irrespective of their regular/territorial designation. The citation would make it clear which file series I was referring to.
    • Conversely the Medal Index Cards WO 327 covering all men and women who served, I treat as a "collection of documents" and a single source, because in workflow terms that is a collection that I go to and search for family members (and associates) who I know served in WW1. Once you have found the card, your work is really done (other than transcribing).
  • When I am at say Carlisle Archives I can search a microfilm of a group of Parish Registers - that would be my collection and source. But if I persuade an archivist to dig out the actual register for a parish (so that I can more easily read some of the entries), that register is my "collection" of parish events and I will work with it to try and find all family members that are in it.
  • Possibly perversely I treat GRO Marriage Certificates as a collection. I am not "working in detail" with the whole collection, but it is the collection I that I apply through to find the certificate I want (if necessary taking a number of stabs). The information may have "been transcribed off the specific certificate" but "I got the information" from the GRO collection (as opposed to say the Local Registrar's Collection).
I find my lumping approach works for me for both types of workflow - which may be a reflection of the discipline I was taught (pre internet) when writing my thesis.
David
Running FH 6.2.7. Under Wine on Linux (Lubuntu 18.04 LTS)

User avatar
davidf
Famous
Posts: 234
Joined: 17 Jan 2009 19:14
Family Historian: V6.2

Re: Help Understanding Sources in FH

Post by davidf » 03 Dec 2019 23:20

AdrianBruce wrote:
03 Dec 2019 21:58
....
The crucial factor though, is that I write several paragraphs explaining why I think that this census schedule (say) is the right one for my family. If I have one census schedule per source record, that explanation is written once and kept in one place - on the source record. If the entire 1851 census (say) is one source record, then that explanation is pushed "down" into each citation resulting in the explanation being kept in a dozen or more places. Of course, that's not a problem when it's being created - it's what copy and paste are for. It's when I come to revise the explanation because I've found adjustments to my logic are necessary, that it gets a pain in the posterior.
...
It is a bit of a fiddle in FH but you can attach a shared note to a citation (via the all tab) where it can sit alongside citation media, then if you copy and paste the citation to say each member of the household you have avoided duplication and you have kept the citation notes in the individual property box available for notes specific to that person and source.

In database terms you are then keeping information once and using indexes to point to "master file" type information such as Sources or Citations and Media which would otherwise be duplicated.

I am not sure, however, how information on such shared notes comes through in reports, but I rarely use reports.
Screenshot from 2019-12-03 23-14-10.png
Census with Shared Citation Note (highlighted)
Screenshot from 2019-12-03 23-14-10.png (41.94 KiB) Viewed 164 times
The above shows a "lumped" source "1861 England, Wales & Scotland Census (FMP)" with citation to the particular page "RG09; PN: 3934; FN: 25; PG: 8;", attached media of that page and a transcription of the household.
David
Running FH 6.2.7. Under Wine on Linux (Lubuntu 18.04 LTS)

User avatar
davidf
Famous
Posts: 234
Joined: 17 Jan 2009 19:14
Family Historian: V6.2

Re: Help Understanding Sources in FH

Post by davidf » 03 Dec 2019 23:27

AdrianBruce wrote:
03 Dec 2019 22:07
... am crossing my fingers and anything else it's safe to, that FM v7 can take a major leap towards the sort of citations, foot / end notes, bibliographies, etc., that software like RM can provide.
I know this was the subject of the OP, but how much do people really expect a genealogy program to produce reports that are of shall we say publishable quality?

I find that I use FH to collect and organise information, but then when I am writing up a report (on a person or family group or an incident) I use a word-processor and use the facilities of the word processor to handle sources and citations to a level suitable to my audience.

The result is that I want to be sure the information is in FH logically and consistently organised so that I can find it when writing documents. That is enough!

Possibly I should look at the trial version of RM and get my mind blown at what can be "automatically produced" provided you put the information in the right place and in the right format!
David
Running FH 6.2.7. Under Wine on Linux (Lubuntu 18.04 LTS)

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 16858
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Help Understanding Sources in FH

Post by tatewise » 03 Dec 2019 23:52

David, I am not sure I agree with your workflow analysis.
I am predominantly a tree grower and a splitter.
But when I go searching for people's records it is usually within a particular collection.
Maybe I know their name, their spouse's name (or part of it), and the approximate dates of birth and marriage.
So I search the GRO Marriage Index or Parish Marriage record collections.
With a different set of data I would search other more suitable collections.
I rarely perform a global search for a person across all collections in the hope of a suitable 'hit'.
I know what I find belongs to a collection, but prefer to create a Source record for that single nugget of information.
The reasons are mostly to do with efficiency of GEDCOM database management as described by Adrian Bruce at 21:58.
Holding all the detailed references, transcript, media, explanatory notes, etc, in one Source record is more attractive to me than having it distributed across a lumped Source record and Citations with Media and perhaps a shared Note record.
Maybe the name of the collection is repeated in multiple Source records, but that is a price I prefer to pay.
However, for the majority of the most popular Source record types the collection hardly needs to be mentioned formally as it is self evident.
e.g. Birth Certificates for people born after 1837 in England will belong to the GRO collection applicable at the date of birth, so hardly needs to be specified explicitly. Any reasonably experienced genealogist would know that.
That may not satisfy some people, but it still answers the question of "Where did you get that information?"

BTW: The Citation shared Notes mentioned by David do appear in Reports in much the same way as Source record Notes. But that still leaves Where within Source and Text From Source being repeated in each Citation.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 867
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Help Understanding Sources in FH

Post by AdrianBruce » 04 Dec 2019 00:09

davidf wrote:
03 Dec 2019 23:27
... I know this was the subject of the OP, but how much do people really expect a genealogy program to produce reports that are of shall we say publishable quality?

I find that I use FH to collect and organise information, but then when I am writing up a report (on a person or family group or an incident) I use a word-processor and use the facilities of the word processor to handle sources and citations to a level suitable to my audience. ...
Hmm. Good question. So far the only stuff that I have "published" was given to my parents and I didn't dare put footnotes etc in! It is an uncomfortable question whether I'm doing this in the hope that I can use it, or whether I'm doing it for the intellectual challenge!

davidf wrote:
03 Dec 2019 23:27
... Possibly I should look at the trial version of RM and get my mind blown at what can be "automatically produced" provided you put the information in the right place and in the right format!
Not sure how much the free version will do - it's not installed on my laptop currently - but I have a distinct feeling that the Master Source / Source pairing aka Source / Detailed Source aka collection / source aka.... isn't available in the freeby so you can't create Detailed Sources inheritting from Sources. But you can see the templates.

Re workflows -
“People assume workflow is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff
Hmm - I changed just one word in that quote!
Adrian

avatar
USMC7312
Platinum
Posts: 44
Joined: 12 Jul 2019 23:09
Family Historian: V6

Re: Help Understanding Sources in FH

Post by USMC7312 » 04 Dec 2019 04:15

I wouldn’t install RM with hopes of great reports. Whereas FM has pretty nice reports minus the entire bibliography and citations. RM reports are very old looking but they do an excellent job with source and source lists.

RM also as a sister app called Historian that helps you write the story. I have never tried it so I can’t speak to its usefulness.

That said, for a Windows based genealogy app, my list of product requirements include:

1. Ability to create a book that can be edited in Word.
2. Data pulled from app should always include bibliography and citations.
3. Reports should be highly edible and include bibliography and citations.

A genealogy application should be all inclusive and have the ability to track not just my data, but where it came from to both source and citation levels. It should also track DNA matching for autosomal, X and Y DNA. It should track to do list items, outbound communication and inbound communication. It should track research based upon a source, person, event or place.

The thing is that a good genealogy app should expand your abilities as online apps such as MyHeritage, Ancestry and to a lesser degree Wikitree, FamilySearch and others already provide a range of exciting features. FM costs 59$ and if I am going to invest that much, keeping in mind that only Family Tree Maker costs more, then my expectations are going to be very high.

A desktop app should organize and store my data, where I got at both source and citation levels as well as help track research and communications. It should provide high extensible reports with sources and citations that can be easily edited in Word.

IMPORTANT!
If every time I wish to share my genealogy work with a customer, a friend, a cousin or my parents the expectation is for me to create a document and include a proper bibliography with citations, then why bother using the app. Just install Excel.

Example 1: Native American Ancestry
In my family, I do have cousins that want bibliographies and citations for many reasons. For example, my family on both sides comes from the Britannic Isles with all arriving during the 1600-1750 in America. My DNA results show 98% UK and Ireland and 2% Sweden. On my fathers side many aunts, uncles and cousins all go around claiming Native American blood at what would be my 2nd great grandmother (F-M-F-M). Folklore claims she was 100% Native American as she had jet black hair. Here is the problem, no one I have tested that is a descendant if hers shows any Native American blood. I have roughly 25 or so tests by descendants and not one shows any Native American blood. These 25 tests are from several DNA Testing providers. Logic and more importantly statistics would provide that given autosomal DNA tests results from multiple testing companies of 25 descendants as ample evidence that this all too common story of the 2nd great grandparent who happens to had jet black hair being a full blooded Native American is not true.

Sadly, I shared my finding and one impetuous cousin lost her crap. She like one of our current President candidates had gone around claiming And obviously bragging about her Native American blood. To say she lost her crap doesn’t provide justice to the stink she produced over this finding. She made me prove this to her with not just DNA evidence from multiple testers, but she wanted citations of ever place I obtained my data. She wanted vital(BMDD) and military records where race was indicated. She wanted pictures as well as citations from where the pictures came. She also wanted citations and copies of interviews that were done. I have been fortunate in that I have collected and was able to provide the data demanded by her.

By the way, this cousin and I grew up closely and I have many fond memories with her and her family, but she is barely willing to speak to me still even though I gave her a pile of data and it’s proper attestations that she could barely carry it.

So yes, evidence is very important and it should IMHO be tightly bound to the data and encompass a bibliography and full multi-layered citations.

Example #2 Grandmother Tells Son His Birthday is Wrong

Around 1985 at the death of my great aunt, my grandmother informed my dad that he was born in 5 Jun 1939. Now my father celebrates his birthday on 5 May 1939. One would think, this should be easy to prove, right? You would be wrong.

Proof of birthday on 5 May 1939?
1. 1940 U.S. Census for Casey County, Kentucky clearly shows baby named Welby was 4 months old with the data collected 9 Sept 1940.
2. Kentucky Birth Certificate - Date and year unreadable in copy provided by the state. Original birth certificate list in life.
3. Military Records - Enlistment papers show date of birth as 5 May 1937? Turns out my grandfather liked his liquor and my father didn’t abide by men laying hands upon women unwelcome no matter if it were his mother or unknown ladies. So my father knocked my granddaddy over the head with a skillet after he had sampled the nectar of the gods of Kentucky with too much enthusiasm one evening. This left the pair, my father and grandfather, living under one roof that was too small to contain them both. So it was decided my father, 15 at the time, 1954 would join the Army. A parent can sign for a child of 17 years to be able to join the military. So my father’s enlistment documentation shows a birthdate of 5 May 1937.

Now grandma passed about twelve years ago and my father passed in 2013, but both went to their graves swearing they were right about being born on 5 Jun vs 5 May.

Now here is where multi-layered citations become important. If you use my fathers enlistment papers to prove his dob, then you must confront the discrepancy not just with the most recent birth certificate provided by the state showing 5 May 1939 but enlistment papers showing 5 May 1937. So where did this 1937 come from? Well a request for a copy of ALL his enlistment data includes a very well doctored birth certificate showing 5 May 1937? Now this can’t be right?

1. A mother knows when her children our born. An argument my grandmother made often.
2. My fathers older sister was born in 1937 and no my father was not a twin.

So to add things up, we have one barely readable birth certificate copy provided by the state showing a dob of 5 May 1939. We have enlistment papers showing 5 May 1937. These enlistment papers include a doctored birth certificate showing clearly 5 May 1937. We have my grandmother going to the grave saying my father was born 5 Jun 1939.

The moral of the story is that when you cite the enlistment papers as a source of my fathers birthday, you get 5 May 1937 which is based upon a birth certificate that is unique showing also 5 May 1937. To explain the 1937 birthday you need a multi-layered citation showing the chain of evidence.

That data then needs to be compared to the barely readable birth certificate copy from the state showing 5 May 1939. There is also proof the his older sister was born in 1937 by paper and life. Plus there is also a 1940 census showing my father at four months of age. Where did the Census data come from? A neighbor by chance who happened to be alive and remembers my fathers birth as he was delivered by my 2nd great grandfather whom he was named after.

Long story... but the point should be clear. We need bibliographies and multi-layered citations. Ideally, we don’t want data duplicated as that takes time to enter and consumes space.

Yes, we can use techniques like stuffing an entire citation in the title of the source and just not use citations.

We can also lump data and stuff everything but unique data in the sources title and then use the citations text from source field to provide one off data.

Just because we can do this though doesn’t mean that is not a hack. If the developer wants that data in one field why not name it “citation?”

In my part of the world though, when you use something for something that it is not named for, that is a hack!

I know the idea behind the fields provided for the source and citation are due to the desired compliance with the GEDCOM standard which is IMHO usesless in terms of describing both source and citation. I know FH is a product produced in Europe and Europe has a thing about standardization specification even when the specification obviously fails to be a good means of describing sources and citations.

IMHO, XML would provide a far better means of sharing genealogical data as it is highly descriptive in terms of data field names and data types plus it is very extensible. More importantly, it is easy to convert to and from a database or spreadsheet. If XML is too verbose then their are many XML like options available that would accomplish the same goals.

Genealogy is both art and science, therefore you must provide for shades of gray. People will not have not want to track the common BMDDB dates but also a wide variety of data composed of field names that are personal and based upon a wide variety of types. The GEDCOM standard is not just a failure in terms of its structure but also its implementation. Unfortunately the genealogists making these standards are just beginning to be made up by a generation that just starts to understand the possible choice and use of good technology. With time, things will improve but this requires people that grasp technology and are open to new choices and possibilities.

GEDCOM is an early 1980’s answer to the time of 2020!

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1444
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Help Understanding Sources in FH

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 04 Dec 2019 09:23

"To explain the 1937 birthday you need a multi-layered citation showing the chain of evidence."

No, you don't. Most of your audience (except similarly experienced genealogists) wouldn't understand the subtleties. Perhaps if you're only presenting your data to genealogists like yourselves...

What I use in situations like that is a detailed analysis (produced using a word processor, but referring to sources in my genealogy database) of the discrepancies between pieces of information in different sources, and the reasons for my conclusions, presented in a way that makes sense to Joe and Jane Public. I then produce a PDF file from my written document and attach it to the relevant assertion in my database (birth date in this case) and include that PDF wherever I publish my data.

As we're getting better word-processing facilities in FH7, I might not need a word-processor to do this in future but it will still be 'word-smithed' to ensure the arguments are cogent and coherent, not produced automatically. We're also getting some new reports although I can't assume they'll be 'edible' (I assume that's typo of yours but can't work out what you meant) :D

I do think you're getting hung up on the fact that FH6 doesn't do Bibliographies and doesn't yet have internal word-processing but it can do everything else you want -- and many users here are doing some or all of them every day; and the standards compliance you're so unimpressed with means it's much easier to export your data to other programmes than any other programme I know of (and I've tried a few). [I won't go into the deficiencies of online solutions here -- nothing to do with their facilities, and everything to do with who has control of access to your data/who can change terms and conditions at the drop of a hat and who can change what they charge you to continue using your data -- or go out of business and take your data away for good without any warning.]

You're coming from a different product and seem to regard everything that doesn't work the way you're used to as a 'hack'. We're used to working with a highly-flexible piece of software that allows us all to work differently with the same software programme -- we don't regard what we do as 'hacks'; it's simply using the flexibility of the programme. Speaking for myself I find the implications of 'hack' insulting -- similarly your generalizations about Europe.

Yes, we can use the product as it is out-of-the-box, and many people do just that very happily; but if we're a little more demanding, or indeed want to continue with ways of working we've brought from previous products, we can spend some time and effort thinking about how we want to work and how the product can support that -- and we can ask for suggestions here -- you'll have noticed there are a lot of ideas forthcoming when you ask -- not every idea will suit everyone but none of them are wrong.

And so, a source record has a small number of predefined fields that conform to the Gedcom standard, but can be used for anything you want. You can attach media (as many as you like which don't all have to be images of sources but can be documents discussing the source, or a spreadsheet detailing what searches you've done in the source and what you haven't, or any other kind of document you can think of), more notes within the programme (dedicated to the source or shared with other sources or indeed other types of records for whatever purposes you choose, and including labelled text that you can pull out in queries and reports and plugins). You can split or lump or both, as you choose. Space isn't an issue, nor is volume of records -- FH saves it data in text files and is very efficient at accessing it. There are techniques available now to streamline data entry and make it consistent; and FH7 will improve that. No, we don't have Master Sources or Collections, so I suppose if you see that as a source of duplication, that's a problem for you.

I think there's a basic disconnect in our thinking: we (around here) don't necessarily want the developer to tell us how to work so we don't want single purpose fields, or a non-extensible product. I'm going to suggest that you stop looking at FH6, and wait for FH7 to become available... nothing we can say until then will convince you, I suspect, and what you want doesn't come out of an FH6 box -- you need help from people in these forums to understand how to get what you want...

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 16858
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Help Understanding Sources in FH

Post by tatewise » 04 Dec 2019 10:32

I suspect 'edible' is meant to say 'editable'.

If it were not for GEDCOM then migrating your data from another product into FH would be very difficult.
Yes, we all know it has deficiencies, but its benefits are all too often overlooked.
I have worked with many, many, genealogy products when helping users import from and export to them.
Virtually all of them have a strong affinity to the GEDCOM model.
Yes, they add bells & whistles to their user interface and report writer, but the concepts remain much the same.
Are you aware of the https://fhiso.org/ initiative that is trying to bring genealogy standards into the 21st century.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 867
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Help Understanding Sources in FH

Post by AdrianBruce » 04 Dec 2019 11:25

USMC7312 wrote:
04 Dec 2019 04:15
I wouldn’t install RM with hopes of great reports. Whereas FM has pretty nice reports minus the entire bibliography and citations. RM reports are very old looking but they do an excellent job with source and source lists.
...
An interesting - and useful - summary. I think I would tend to agree with ColeValleyGirl that it would be sensible to hang fire until FH v7 appears and see what that does. Certainly I've dialled down the level of my own speculation about how I might do bibliographies, etc. V7 probably won't be citation Utopia but it might tilt the balance. Or might not.
USMC7312 wrote:
04 Dec 2019 04:15
...
IMHO, XML would provide a far better means of sharing genealogical data as it is highly descriptive in terms of data field names and data types plus it is very extensible. More importantly, it is easy to convert to and from a database or spreadsheet.
...
Yes and no. XML is just a platform - it is not highly descriptive in itself - it just facilitates a highly descriptive use. I have a distinct feeling that if we removed the line length limit in GEDCOM and threw as many new "tags" at it as an XML description would need, then I doubt there would be much difference in genealogical capability. The one seriously major advantage that XML would still have is the existence of lots of easily available routines to manipulate the data in it - which obviously aren't there for GEDCOM. I suspect those routines would facilitate loading of XML into a database. I remain seriously unconvinced that XML describing genealogy usefully could be loaded into a spreadsheet because that only has 2 dimensions.

Technically, XML is extensible. But so is GEDCOM. The issue is not the extension - the issue is agreeing among genealogists what the extensions mean...

And of course, tongue in cheek, for everyone who advocates XML, someone else says, "But XML is so 90s... You need JSON." (Decade not meant to be taken too seriously).
Adrian

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 16858
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Help Understanding Sources in FH

Post by tatewise » 04 Dec 2019 11:46

I agree wholeheartedly with Adrian.
It is not so much the GEDCOM standard(s) that are at fault as the genealogy product developers who are not adhering to them, and not agreeing any extensions that are needed.
Using XML would be no different, as it is just a means of structuring data. The structures still need to be agreed.
GEDCOM has a well defined Lineage-Linked Form grammar, but adhering to the structured definitions is the problem.
I suspect there is a certain amount of commercialism at work here. If a product uses its own custom structures and tags, it makes it more difficult for users to migrate away to another product, and it markets those features as USP.
Although FH claims full GEDCOM compliance, it is not immune from creating its own custom structures and tags (within the rules of GEDCOM) as defined in Knowledge Base > GEDCOM Extension List.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

Post Reply