* FH V7 Note record Text allows Source citation error?

[tatewise]

In FH v7.0.3, open any Note record Property Box and open its All tab.
The top line will show the start of the note text, the Record Id, and the Updated time stamp.
The second line will show Text and the start of the note text again.

Right-click Text and in addition to Copy there is Add Source and Add Source Note.
If you choose either Add Source option then the GEDCOM gains a 1 _TEXT tag and a 2 SOUR tag.
File > Validate... is happy with them, but they look odd.
FH v6.2.7 does not support those options and they are not a GEDCOM 5.5.1 feature.

They look like a bug to me!
What do the FH V7 experts think?

[NickWalker]

I agree that this seems a bit odd - you can have a source for the note record so it seems odd that you would also have a potentially different source for the text within the note because really there isn't anything else in a note record of any use except the text. I don't know if it's a bug or by design but I really can't see why this is needed.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I suppose a Note record might acquire a source if it was part of a merged data set, and the Text might then have/need a different source, but it's a stretch.

[NickWalker]

Well I think a note record can only have one text field so if there was more than one source citation they could be added to the note itself, I can't see a reason to add a source to the text field.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Source to Note: This source came from Fred's Project.
Source to Text: This text is quoting from Milly Moly Mandy's Guide to Life the Universe and Everything. (I might do this via an embedded source rather than a Source Link, but it's still a Source for (part of) the Text rather than the Note as a whole.)

A bit like having a Source for a whole individual record, and other sources e.g. the Name.

[NickWalker]

But unless I'm misunderstanding something, I don't think it's possible to have a source for part of the text. The text is the note, and the note is the text. They are the same thing.

I don't think the analogy with an individual record works: a Source for an individual record makes sense because an individual has lots of different fields (name, facts, etc.). e.g. you could have a source for when you found this individual exists and a different source for when you found their name. But you can't really have a source for a note and a different source for the text because a note without text isn't something that would make sense.

[ColeValleyGirl]

A note without text might not make sense, Nick, but you might have received the original Note from Fred and then added some material of your own. I did say it was a stretch. And we haven't even got into embedded text links which you could use to source part of the text...

[NickWalker]

Well possibly, but it's a massive stretch. I only really responded to this so Mike didn't think we were ignoring him - it causes no issues at all for me having this feature there as I certainly won't be using it although I suppose a user might accidentally link a citation to the text rather than the note and not realise this is producing a non standard tag.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Ditto I'm unlikely to use it, but as sure as eggs are eggs somebody will.

[tatewise]

You are all missing the point. A Note record has no actual TEXT field or TEXT tag.
No such Note record tag is used by FH v6 or FH v7 or defined GEDCOM 5.5 or GEDCOM 5.5.1.

Trying to add a Source by right-click on Text in th All tab in FH v6 is not allowed.

This feature/bug has appeared in FH v7 but does not add the Source to the Note text.
It creates a non-standard custom 1 _TEXT tag with no note text and subsidiary 2 SOUR tag.
That 1 _TEXT tag was not there before adding the Source!
e.g.
0 @N123@ This is the text of a note record.
1 _TEXT
2 SOUR @S321@

It looks like a bug to me.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Perhaps you should have laboured the point more, Mike, so we spotted it -- we were discussing instead whether or not the 'feature' had a use.

Report it as a bug if you believe it to be one.

[tatewise]

I've been busy trying to update my PC to Windows 20H2 all day or I would have interjected.
I thought my original post was clear enough that I felt it was a bug.

[NickWalker]

I wasn't missing the point thank you. I wasn't interested in how it was recorded in the Gedcom and didn't mention that at all because it is clearly an FH specific tag and how CP decide to record it is up to them, my comments were entirely based on the interface and what the point of allowing this is and as I said it doesn't make sense to me.