* Understanding source templates

[davidf]

https://fhug.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php ... 11#p130733

I'm with you on crows feet, Adrian.

So am I - but which applications allow "connectors" terminated with "crows feet"?

Last time I used MS Office (some years ago), it did not. The current Libre Office does not (but I bet someone has written a plug-in - I just need to find it)

Many years ago (late 1980 - pre WIMP DOS!) I had a company issue of a package, I think called Automate which did a lot of data normalisation and process analysis and could output Entity Relationship Diagrams etc. I seem to remember using Lotus Manuscript to stitch together an overview of how ERP could work in my company - and many of the "silo'd" systems analysts and managers seemed surprised by the high number of relationships!

SmartDraw does them (at $10/mth).

MS Visio also claims to do them (£3.80 or £11.30/mth)

Can anyone recommend software that does either Entity Relationship Diagrams, or just Diagrams with "crows foot" connectors - either "free" or at a modest "home user" price?

[ColeValleyGirl]

I used LucidChart to produce my diagram.

[davidf]

Thanks, a bit of a learning curve but once you click into the mind-warp of the people who wrote it, you can produce something presentable reasonably quickly.

The trouble is Entity Relationship Diagrams are really designed for Relational Databases not "tree type". Trying to do a Physical Data Model (to show primary and foreign keys) to just prevent a complete rat's nest I ended up normalising some of the records, so following strict rules (if I could remember them!).

Just trying to draw it is instructive - a lot of right clicking in the All Tabs - (revealing a few quirks in V6)

GEDCOM in FH - Database ER diagram (crow's foot) Version 1.0.pdf

GEDCOM in FH6 "ERD"

(59.33 KiB) Downloaded 85 times

A large file so using pdf as the most compact!

[ColeValleyGirl]

Should you want to cross-check it with Gedcom GEDCOM Standard Release 5.5 and 5.5.1 has a link at the bottom of the table..

[fhtess65]

This is the route I ended up taking - just easier for me to manage... I love the way I can do this in FH way more than I ever could in RootsMagic.

T

Do those populated citation fields then become part of the source record?

No, the citation fields don't become part of the Source record. The Source record contains only the details which are common to all instances of its use. (Although if you are a 'splitter' you might be able to put a lot of detail in the Source record and none at all in the citations)
<SNIP>

[davidf]

Should you want to cross-check it with Gedcom GEDCOM Standard Release 5.5 and 5.5.1 has a link at the bottom of the table..

It's almost as if that data model (file page 95/96) representation is speaking a different language!

It certainly does not illustrate how the citation structure is a "virtual" entity that appears in many records multiple times. That is what I set out to achieve and the initial result was worse than the tube map overlaid with Network South-East Trains (see TFL map for those outside UK).

I think a lot of people are misled by the language; Mike regularly reminds us that a "fact is not a record" - I sometimes think that talking about "sources and citations" outside a relational database is also misleading. It's more "sources and source link descriptions". It's key for new users to get their minds around "lumper"/"slitter".

I notice that even FH gets it's language in a twist.

Add Note to this "Record"

Screenshot from 2022-11-29 21-58-30.png (37.85 KiB) Viewed 3234 times

Technically it is adding an ordinary note to the Individual Record, but in this instance it is adding it to the "Death Fact".

Perhaps we want a wish list item for FHv8 to have clearer language - Records/Facts, Diagrams/Charts, Citations (if not abandoning the word having a cleared delineation both visually/linguistically), Families/Couples & Offspring, etc. How much should we have to follow GEDCOM language?

[AdrianBruce]

... It certainly does not illustrate how the citation structure is a "virtual" entity that appears in many records multiple times. That is what I set out to achieve and the initial result was worse than the tube map overlaid with Network South-East Trains ...

TBH having had this churning round in my head, I think that if I were attempting to "explain" the citation structure using that sort of Entity Relationship Diagram (which is a sensible approach, I believe), I'd start with just a snippet of the three entities Individual Record Facts, Individual Record Citations and the Source Record - with the relationships drawn in. That establishes the important structure, which is then simply replicated over loads of other entities, as in your diagram.

... Perhaps we want a wish list item for FHv8 to have clearer language - Records/Facts, Diagrams/Charts, Citations (if not abandoning the word having a cleared delineation both visually/linguistically), Families/Couples & Offspring, etc. How much should we have to follow GEDCOM language?

There are bits, I think, where FH already uses different terms from GEDCOM. But two points about "clearer language". Firstly, as we've said elsewhere (I think!) the danger of "clearer language" is that it is simply another set of terms that therefore confuse those who have got used to the old ones. Secondly, that's the sort of proposal that cries out for specific suggestions, otherwise, it just becomes personal opinion of the developers. And they probably quite like what they've done already - I would! So explicit suggestions (no, not that use of "explicit"!) would help.

[BEJ]

For what it's worth, here's how I describe a Citation in my notes resulting from this thread.

A CITATION is composed of (1) links that connect a SOURCE RCORD with Facts, (2) fields for specifying where within a source certain genealogical information can be found, and (3) links to associated data such as MEDIA or NOTE RECORDS. CITATION fields could be empty when “splitting” sources, with the CITATION holding only links and any reference details contained in the SOURCE RECORD.

[ColeValleyGirl]

A CITATION is composed of (1) links that connect a SOURCE RECORD with Facts

That should be (1) a [one] link that connects a Source RECORD with a [one] Fact.

[BEJ]

Thanks. I had it as one-to-one, then rearranged the sentence order in the last minute before posting.

A Citation is composed of (1) a link that connects a Source Record with one Fact, (2) fields for specifying where within a source certain genealogical information can be found, and (3) links to associated data such as Media or Note Records. Citation fields could be empty when “splitting” sources, with the Citation holding only links and any reference details contained in the Source Record.

My description still did not fully answer my own question about what a citation is. If not a “record” or “collection of subfields,” then what IS it as opposed to what it DOES? The best I could come up with is that it’s an “entity” of Family Historian: “A Citation is an entity composed of (1) a link...”

But, enough. Moving on to do some family history!

[davidf]

My description still did not fully answer my own question about what a citation is. If not a “record” or “collection of subfields,” then what IS it as opposed to what it DOES? The best I could come up with is that it’s an “entity” of Family Historian: “A Citation is an entity composed of (1) a link...”

At is most elemental a citation is a "collection of data that associates something with some authority"? Whether it is a record or subfields rather depends on how the software represents it. FH (and GEDCOM) represent it as a sub-branch of the "fact" being supported - fact understood in the widest possible sense (i.e. not just events and attributes). Examine the all tab and the links to sources and the branches hanging off them.

Other representations could have citations as a table of records each of which which link facts (which would have to be in their own table with each fact having a unique ID) and sources (by means of their own unique IDs). Yet another representation could have a citations as having a citation-header record with the link to a source and then a link to a "citation-line" table that links that header to multiple facts. That would be a mid point between lumper and splitter!

We trip up over words like "entities" which in some systems can be virtual (possibly FH citations), without having a physical entity (for instance their own table)

[BEJ]

That helps a bit. Thanks. I didn’t include “entity” in my final description in anticipation of some explanation along those lines.

[AdrianBruce]

...
My description still did not fully answer my own question about what a citation is. If not a “record” or “collection of subfields,” then what IS it as opposed to what it DOES? ...

Actually, I'm happy with the idea that a citation is recorded as a set of subfields, hung under the fact (event, attribute, person, or whatever), that the citation "justifies". Each fact can have several citations hung under it, one set after the other - I use the phrase "hung under the fact" because that's what it looks like in the GEDCOM file.

[ColeValleyGirl]

So am I - but which applications allow "connectors" terminated with "crows feet"?

Can anyone recommend software that does either Entity Relationship Diagrams, or just Diagrams with "crows foot" connectors - either "free" or at a modest "home user" price?

I've been trying draw.io for some time and am reasonably happy with it. Free.

[cwhermann]

Not sure if this post should be a new thread, but this is the closest thread I saw dealing with the fact that a citation is the link between a fact and a source record.

If a citation is a "collection of fields" that create a link between a fact and a source record is there any way change the link from the same fact to a different source record?
I created a citation for a death fact, using the wrong source record [355]. I should have used source record [382]. Both source records use the same template, so all fields and names are identical.
Obviously, I could create a new citation to the correct source, but I have already linked media and created the text from source information and would like to avoid all the copy/paste.

[tatewise]

On the All tab fully expand the Fact and its Source fields.
Right-click on the Source record [355] listed on the right and choose Replace Link With > Link to Existing Source Record and select Source record [382].

[cwhermann]

Thanks Mike,
I have changed the source templates via the All Tab for the source record so was looking for an "All Tab" for the citation - looked at facts, the citation window - but did not think of the All Tab for the Individual.
I have never used the All-Tab for individual to enter data - something I will need to study more when I get my source templates cleaned up.