In your example it could easily be dealt with using a single repository, whether you choose that to be your personal library, the British Library (which in the UK holds copies all published works), or some other choice. Then add a note record recording that local copies may be found/consulted via public libraries, Records Offices etc., using the recorded detail and ISBN included in the citation.
As another example, for me the main Repository for England & Wales Census documentation is recorded The National Archives but I attach a Reference Note to the single Repository explaining that the Census Data/Images may be seen online at numerous commercial sites including.....; and at some Records Offices and Reference Libraries. I'm certainly not going to unnecessarily attach multiple Repositories to every Census reference just for the sake of it.
And just in case you think I am simply anti-TMG, I was a user for more than 6 years and while it certainly had some positives, I always found it to be clunky and tedious to use in comparison with most Windows software. More of a DOS program made to work on Windows than a true Windows program, which of course links directly back to the database software it is still dependent on, i.e. the no longer supported FoxPro, which no matter how Microsoft presented it, was still DBase in a Microsoft overcoat; and I used DBase on on a C/PM machine in the 1980s along with Wordstar and Supercalc.
mjashby wrote:I used DBase on on a C/PM machine in the 1980s along with Wordstar and Supercalc.
Now that brings back some happy memories .
Using FH 6.2.7, with CC 6.7.37 Windows 10.0.14393 Build14393, LibreOffice 220.127.116.11(x64), Firefox 67.0.1(64Bit) & Thunderbird 60.7.0
- Posts: 800
- Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
- Family Historian: V6.2
- Location: South Cheshire
DonF wrote:... Adrian's question of why would anyone want to record a book being in more than one repository, when the important thing is that he found it in a particular library, let me give an example. ...
Yes and no. ( )
Yes, because your justification for doing what you suggest is sensible.
No, because that's not actually what the Repository of a Source is for. (Doesn't mean you can't use it for something entirely different - but it does mean that you create a risk because you're cutting across the purpose of the software). I have always felt that designing or using a piece of software for 2 different purposes was a road to ruin. Sooner or later, someone says, "Why are we doing this?" and they let the other bit of functionality wither on the vine.
As I've tried to convey, the classic view of a Source-Record for the 1st edition of "My Life in Kenya" is that it describes the physical copy that you used - the one with the coffee stain on the back cover. It's not meant to describe all the copies of that 1st edition - what might be described as the theoretical or logical book. Listing several different repositories for the 1st edition of "My Life in Kenya" is a cataloguing function, not a genealogy function. The limit of not including cataloguing functions in a genealogy product, is not, I suggest, arbitrary at all but flows naturally from the purpose of what the program is for.
And as Lorna says, many people don't even record the Repository for a published book (I don't) unless it's seriously old and / or rare. This is even OK'd by Elizabeth Shown Mills! Another source of a clash if interchanging data.
As I said, it's not really about what must be done or not done - rather that diverging from the intention carries risks that might turn round and bite you in the posterior. And I can find enough posterior risks in relatives who change names and birth-dates without creating others!
But I'm not suggesting (as others seem to have assumed) that I ALWAYS do what I described. In fact, I hardly do it at all - but I do (usually) do it for books that are in my library. Why? Because others might want to find said book, and I'm not expecting them to knock on my door, wanting to read it.
And like you, I don't list a repository for common, publicly accessible items. Census records are a good example.
My understanding of quoting a Source is to enable others to reference it, to validate your conclusions and having a Repository associated with that gave them a finding aid. Or to quote the TMG Help "A repository record is used to record where a particular source was found."
But to go back to square one, the original question was how TMG structured Citation, Source, Repository and I answered that, pointing out along the way that TMG offered flexibility and no restraints on their connectivity, unlike other programs.
How those facilities are used remains entirely up to the user, and I'd never suggest there is only one 'right way'.
Having read your message and then skimmed the consequent replies, I note that you haven't been following the thread and neither could I.
I quote your closing comments: " At 73, I want to spend my time researching and writing, not figuring out the vagaries and shortfalls of new contenders. There is no comparison between the two programs period! When it comes to meeting my research and writing requirements TMG is still the champion. So it is with some regret that I am abandoning FH and staying with the tried and tested TMG until and unless something closely approximating the power and flexibility of TMG comes along."
I agree with you first sentence. As for the rest, I can only say "Horses for courses!" I hope that you continue to enjoy your hobby for many years to come and wish you good health.
My regards, Bill
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests