* Citing Sources: Method 1 and Method 2 - comparison table tweaks

[KFN]

Once you understand the implications of each method (enough that you can deal with the consequences of your decisions), you can mix and match to your heart's content -- the 'method police' will not be coming after you.

I guess what I'm trying to understand and I don't get it from the documentation is the consequences! This is why I started to look at the page "Method 1 and Method 2" and realized it did not make any sense to me, thus my initial comments that if I can't understand will others? the answered I got did not fit my understand of sourcing in general and the definitions we use at the genealogy center where I volunteer.

That is all!

[AdrianBruce]

We ought to be consistent with (a) GEDCOM and (b) the FH Help files (for V6 and V7) in the terminology we use -- anything else is a disservice to users, especially if they're coming from other products and are already familiar with the terminology of Sources/Source Records and Citations.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

Two things to mull over - the FH Citation Window makes it clear (to me!) that

Citation (the tab) = Source Record + Citation-specific Details

As "Citation-specific Details" = that intersection identity that you're suggesting should be called Citation, then the equation ends up as

Citation (the tab) = Source Record + Citation

That doesn't seem right to me and suggests that the FH User Interface doesn't match the FH Help files, etc. That worries the heck out of me. There are, of course, different ways of dealing with that, including a section on "Hey Guys, this is what we are referring to as a Citation - it may be different to what you expect but..."

The second thing is that I'm seriously unsure of the terminology elsewhere of Sources/Source Records and Citations. From my limited overview of other software (including that occasion I got politely burned over my FH-style definition of the "citation" entity), there are plenty of people who define "citation" as the source-record info plus Citation-Specific Details or whatever we prefer to call it. And then, where FH has Source Record and Citation (or Citation-Specific Details), they might have Master-Source and Source or Source and Detailed-Source. (IIRC that's FTM and the older versions of RM and yes, the word "Source" was at different levels in those two definitions). So I'm really not certain that "already familiar with the terminology of Sources/Source Records and Citations" really applies.

If the consensus is that we explain what is meant in FH by "citation" and how it may not match the concept of "citation" used elsewhere, then fine - but somehow we need to catch those people who have come from elsewhere and say "I don't know what you mean by citation..."

[ColeValleyGirl]

Adrian, does it help to consider that the citation structure in GEDCOM includes a pointer to the source record? So

Citation (the tab) = Source Record + Citation-specific Details

is about right.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I guess what I'm trying to understand and I don't get it from the documentation is the consequences! This is why I started to look at the page "Method 1 and Method 2" and realized it did not make any sense to me, thus my initial comments that if I can't understand will others? the answered I got did not fit my understand of sourcing in general and the definitions we use at the genealogy center where I volunteer.

OK.

i havent got a good sense of what you're not understanding. Are we at least on the same page about what a Source, Source Record and Citation are (in data terms, not presentation terms).

[KFN]

A source is the “Source_Record” (a GEDCOM term) plus the “Source_Citation” (a GEDCOM term) but referred to by FH as a “citation”.

[BillH]

A source is the “Source_Record” (a GEDCOM term) plus the “Source_Citation” (a GEDCOM term) but referred to by FH as a “citation”.

I'm not sure this is correct. I thought the source was the book, magazine, web page, census page, etc. that contains the info to create the fact and the citation was just a link from the fact to the source.

Bill

[KFN]

A source is the “Source_Record” (a GEDCOM term) plus the “Source_Citation” (a GEDCOM term) but referred to by FH as a “citation”.

I'm not sure this is correct. I thought the source was the book, magazine, web page, census page, etc. that contains the info to create the fact and the citation was just a link from the fact to the source.

Bill

As I understand it... We are talking two separate areas.

1) The Physical Source, (book, magazine, web page, census).
2) The storage of the Information about the Physical Source. (Source_Originator, Source_Descriptive_Title, Source_Publication_Facts, Text_From_Source, Source_Repository_Citation, Where_In_Source and a little more.)

My understanding of the question directed to me was #2.

[AdrianBruce]

Adrian, does it help to consider that the citation structure in GEDCOM includes a pointer to the source record? So
Citation (the tab) = Source Record + Citation-specific Details
is about right.

That "equation" I'm fine with. But it doesn't seem to line up with the table in "Citing Sources: Method 1 and Method 2", which uses the term "Citation" to mean "not Source-Record", i.e. Citation-Specific Details. So the meaning of Citation in the table is not the meaning of Citation in that equation...

[BillH]

A source is the “Source_Record” (a GEDCOM term) plus the “Source_Citation” (a GEDCOM term) but referred to by FH as a “citation”.

2) The storage of the Information about the Physical Source. (Source_Originator, Source_Descriptive_Title, Source_Publication_Facts, Text_From_Source, Source_Repository_Citation, Where_In_Source and a little more.)

My understanding of the question directed to me was #2.

I guess I'm still confused, but that is OK... I've been using FH for 13 or 14 years and this whole question has never been a concern for me.

Bill

[KFN]

A source is the “Source_Record” (a GEDCOM term) plus the “Source_Citation” (a GEDCOM term) but referred to by FH as a “citation”.

2) The storage of the Information about the Physical Source. (Source_Originator, Source_Descriptive_Title, Source_Publication_Facts, Text_From_Source, Source_Repository_Citation, Where_In_Source and a little more.)

My understanding of the question directed to me was #2.

I guess I'm still confused, but that is OK... I've been using FH for 13 or 14 years and this whole question has never been a concern for me.

Bill

Bill, you may be correct. I come from a different place after 40 years and I'm trying to understand FH just now! So I'm checking my understanding of FH nomenclature!

[ColeValleyGirl]

A source is the “Source_Record” (a GEDCOM term) plus the “Source_Citation” (a GEDCOM term) but referred to by FH as a “citation”.

In the context of this article, which is talking about how to organise information about sources within FH, I would say:

• Source = the thing that was consulted (book, record, image, etc.)
• Source Record = the information recorded about the Source in the GEDCOM "SOURCE_RECORD" (lazily, we sometimes refer to this a Source, but the context usually makes it clear that we're talking about the Source Record)
• Citation = the information stored in the GEDCOM "SOURCE_CITATION" (including the link to the relevant Source Record)

In a wider context, Citation is also used for the Footnotes/Short Footnotes in reports that document the sources that support an assertion, each constructed using a Citation (as defined above) and associated Source Record -- the 'academic' use of Citation, if you will.

Others may wish to contradict me

[ColeValleyGirl]

One thing I'm picking up from this discussion is that the definitions of Source/Source record/Citation in Sources and Citations in Version 7 (for New Users) need improving. Do others agree?

[tatewise]

Yes, I agree.
What are Sources and Citations? is mainly talking in genealogy terms and not data storage terms.
How Many Sources do I Need? introduces the data storage terms for Source Records and Citations. It also refers to Method 1 and Method 2.
Creating and Using Sources and Citations then refers to Method 1 and Method 2 and Method 3 but in a new context.
Maybe these could be called Work Flows to avoid confusion with Method 1 and Method 2 above.

The description of genealogy document Sources & Citations versus FH/GEDCOM data storage Sources & Citations is blurred.

Would a simple diagram of the data storage structure help avoid confusion?
i.e.
Individual/Family Record box containing small boxes for Facts and Citations in linked pairs.
Possibly even two such Individual/Family Record boxes would clarify the structure further.
Each Citation would have a pointer link to a single Source Record box.

[Jean001]

In the context of this article, which is talking about how to organise information about sources within FH, I would say:

• Source = the thing that was consulted (book, record, image, etc.)
• Source Record = the information recorded about the Source in the GEDCOM "SOURCE_RECORD" (lazily, we sometimes refer to this a Source, but the context usually makes it clear that we're talking about the Source Record)
• Citation = the information stored in the GEDCOM "SOURCE_CITATION" (including the link to the relevant Source Record)

In a wider context, Citation is also used for the Footnotes/Short Footnotes in reports that document the sources that support an assertion, each constructed using a Citation (as defined above) and associated Source Record -- the 'academic' use of Citation, if you will.

Others may wish to contradict me

I agree re Source and Source Record.

Just with regard to the term 'Citation(s)'.

FH's Glossary of terms has 'Citation: See Source Citation'. Then 'Source Citation: A source citation links an item of data to the source of the information. A source citation can be qualified by a note or other details, such as an assessment of the reliability of the source for that particular item of information.'

'Citation{s)' is used throughout the Help and the program, as a short form of the full form.

In the publishing world, rather than 'citation(s)' the term used was 'references' or 'bibliographic references'. (May be still is, I'm no longer 'in that world'.)

However, some people using FH do use 'Citation' rather than reference. They are not 'wrong' but one word with two different meanings is likely to cause misunderstanding.

[KFN]

One thing I'm picking up from this discussion is that the definitions of Source/Source record/Citation in Sources and Citations in Version 7 (for New Users) need improving. Do others agree?

I agree. A common language must be created so the reader does not misunderstand the documentation. And all terms must be used consistently (based on definition) in the documentation. Something not always done in the software!

I would include all terms including Lumper and Splitter here as well (sorry for bringing this up again!). Someone coming from other software will have a different definition for these terms as well! For example the Legacy People understand this:

An example... you have your great-grandmother's birth certificate. Ask yourself this question - do you set up a new Master Source for that certificate alone, or do you use a Master Source that covers all birth certificates...

Some people will set up a new Master Source for each certificate they acquire. We call that "splitting" on this mailing list; you end up with a lot of Master Sources this way. In this situation you probably won't use the Source Detail very much, and it's appropriate to attach an image to the Master Source.

Other people will set up a Master Source for all birth certificates they acquire of the same type, and then put the information specific to each item in the Source Detail. In this situation, I'd attach an image to the Source Detail, so that each citation has an image relevant to its use. We call this "lumping" on this mailing list.

This example can be used with Census as well. One "Master Source" called Census, or a "Master Source" for each census (i.e. 1801 Norway National Census)

This understanding will confuse a newbie to FH!

I realize you can't know what a person coming to FH will know, but you can tell them what they need to know while using FH! Also these terms need to be defined in one place, but when used on a page for the first time a link should be used to take the reader to that one place!

While I worked as a consultant in the 1980's I spent some of my down time working with the writers. The writers knew writing but did not know the software, and they always asked me "what does that term mean" or "please define that"!

[tatewise]

I don't understand your claim that: "This understanding will confuse a newbie to FH!"

The Legacy concepts of "splitting" & "lumping" are the same as the FH concepts for Method 1 "splitter" & Method 2 "lumper".
Simply replace Master Source and Source Detail with Source (record) and Citation (specific details), then that Legacy example would apply to FH.

You say: "This example can be used with Census as well. One "Master Source" called Census, or a "Master Source" for each census (i.e. 1801 Norway National Census)"
Both those would be "lumping" but to varying degrees, with the household-specific data in the "Source Details".
Whereas, "splitting" has a "Master Source" for each Census household-specific data and very little in the "Source Details".

That suggests to me that your understanding of "splitting" and "lumping" is different from both Legacy and FH.

[LornaCraig]

KFN: Judging by the what you have quoted, the Legacy community uses the terms “lumping” and “splitting” in exactly the same way as the FH community does. The difference is that it uses the term ”Master Source” where FH uses “Source record”.

Are you suggesting that when the FH documentation introduces a term such as Source Record it should include a list of what each and every other genealogy program calls it? I doubt whether any other program does that! And it would be an unnecessary overload of information for anyone starting out with FH from scratch.

Perhaps there is a case for including specific details in the sections on importing, for example under importing from Legacy there could be a mention of the fact that a Legacy “Master Source” is equivalent to an FH Source record.

[KFN]

Judging by the what you have quoted, the Legacy community uses the terms “lumping” and “splitting” in exactly the same way as the FH community does. The only difference is that it uses the term ”Master Source” where FH uses “Source record”.

Are you suggesting that when the FH documentation introduces a term such as Source Record it should include a list of what each and every other genealogy program calls it? I doubt whether any other program does that! And it would be an unnecessary overload of information for anyone starting out with FH from scratch.

Perhaps there is a case for including specific details in the sections on importing, for example under importing from Legacy there could be a mention of the fact that a Legacy “Master Source” is equivalent to an FH Source record.

I did not get this from the documentation provided that they are equally defined. Method 2 drop down is very short and does not show the same source types entered using method 1!

I never said that you FHUG needs to define the terms used by others, but it did say

"I realize you can't know what a person coming to FH will know, but you can tell them what they need to know while using FH! Also these terms need to be defined in one place, but when used on a page for the first time a link should be used to take the reader to that one place!

I don't know that "Master Source" is equal to "Source_Record" (I jettisoned Legacy years ago with no current comparison) and you don't need to know that either. Incoming people need to know what a "Source_Record" is and the information it could contain for the types of "sources" they are entering for both Method 1 and Method 2. (i.e. if you are entering a Birth Certificate using Method 1 where does data go, vs adding the same Birth Certificate using Method 2. And the same for Census, or some other source.) Does that make sense? This the subtle difference in the definition provided!

[tatewise]

I did not get this from the documentation provided that they are equally defined. Method 2 drop down is very short and does not show the same source types entered using method 2!

I suspect your last mention of method 2 meant to say Method 1.

Although no screenshots are provided, the Method 1 dropdown does explain how the same 1871 Census would be captured using Method 2. It is in the 2nd paragraph of the Method 1 Conclusion.
So the documentation does describe the same source type entered using both methods.

It also goes on to explain why Source Citations migrated from other products often result in Method 2 'lumper' style data.

It seems that you did not gain the desired understanding from reading those paragraphs, so how could we improve them?

[ColeValleyGirl]

The description of genealogy document Sources & Citations versus FH/GEDCOM data storage Sources & Citations is blurred.

Which is the nub of the problem -- the same words are used for different things, distinguished only by context. FH itself uses 'Sources' and 'Citations' for the storage entities, as well as for the genealogical concepts of Sources and Citations.

Source seems to be an area of less confusion but we need to indicate that both 'Source' and 'Source Record' are commonly used for Source Records within FH.

Likewise, that Citation is used for the 'annotated' link from Fact etc. to a Source Record, but also for the Footnotes etc. in reports.

Creating and Using Sources and Citations then refers to Method 1 and Method 2 and Method 3 but in a new context.
Maybe these could be called Work Flows to avoid confusion with Method 1 and Method 2 above.

Easily changes to Option 1, Option 2 etc -- 'Workflow' is a bit jargon-y.

Would a simple diagram of the data storage structure help avoid confusion?
i.e.
Individual/Family Record box containing small boxes for Facts and Citations in linked pairs.
Possibly even two such Individual/Family Record boxes would clarify the structure further.
Each Citation would have a pointer link to a single Source Record box.

Possibly, if it could be made simple without losing important information.

[ColeValleyGirl]

A common language must be created so the reader does not misunderstand the documentation. And all terms must be used consistently (based on definition) in the documentation. Something not always done in the software!

If we use language that differs from that used in the FH documentation, we'll only sow more confusion.

I realize you can't know what a person coming to FH will know, but you can tell them what they need to know while using FH! Also these terms need to be defined in one place, but when used on a page for the first time a link should be used to take the reader to that one place!

Important terms are defined in the Glossary in the Knowledge Base, and automatically linked the first time they're used on a page, but the facility isn't working at present; we're talking to the relevant software developer to work out why. The Glossary definitions can definitely be improved in this area.

[AdrianBruce]

OK - sticking my head into the lion's jaw (and / or lioness's? )

Here's my attempt at a definition of Citation. There is a deliberate attempt to foreshadow Method 1 & 2 within the words, else some phrases might not be necessary. I also tried to pick up on some words in the FH Help Glossary.
------------------
In Genealogy, external to FH:
A citation is linked to an item of data. It records the identity of a source that provides evidence for that item of data, and therefore links the item of data and the source. It can also provide additional qualifying information about the source, and also about how the source relates to the item of data. Externally to FH, it often appears as a footnote, endnote, or other form of reference.

Within FH:
A citation (aka source citation) is linked to a "fact". It records the identity of, and links to, a source-record that provides evidence for that "fact". Information from the (real world) source can be held either on the source-record or within the citation-data itself. Information about how the (real world) source relates to the "fact" can be held with the citation-data itself.

The citation is unique to that combination of "fact" and source-record. Other citations may have the same source-record and additional information but there is no means of linking them in FH.

In FH, the output Citation = Data from the Source-record plus optional, additional data held within the citation-data. The output Citation can appear as a footnote, endnote, or other form of reference.

----------------

The Glossary puts the definition under Source Citation - I prefer to put it under Citation as that's more likely to be the term searched for but so long as there's a link, I'm not that fussed - except that the word used throughout my definition is "citation".

I use the word "fact" in quotes to cover events, attributes, names, witnesses, etc, etc - whatever can have sources cited against them. The word "fact" should not be thought to imply any absolute certainty or finality.

"Citation-data" is my attempt at a name to cover not just templated items held at the citation level but also things like "where within" for generic sources and assessments for both. I believe it important to explicitly separate it from the link elements of "citation".

[tatewise]

I have a slight concern with the term "fact" for fear that it will be confused with the FH definition of a Fact.
The items that a Citation can be linked to include not just events, attributes, names, and witnesses, but also places, media, notes, and whole records such as Individual, Family, Note, and Media. Maybe "data item" would be better?

[ColeValleyGirl]

OK - sticking my head into the lion's jaw (and / or lioness's? )

Thanks, Adrian. That's a good basis for updating Sources and Citations in Version 7 (for New Users) (with a bit of wordsmithing to get the tone to match); Citing Sources: Method 1 and Method 2 can then be modified to refer readers to the introductory article first. I'll also need to update Source and Citation. I don't see a need to update Working with Sources and Citations in Version 6 and below or Sources and Citations in Version 7 (for Upgraders) as neither of them apply to new users.

I think we should avoid the word 'data' (us old warhorses know what it means but a new genealogist may not think of what they're working with as 'data').

To address Mike's (and my) concern about 'fact', could we use 'Fact, etc.' with a footnote explaining what the etc. covers?

On a more radical note, I could be tempted to replace all references to Method 1 and Method 2 with 'Splitting' and 'Lumping' -- partly because I can never remember which is which and 'Splitting' and 'Lumping' are more obvious descriptors. (Not in the Ancestral Sources articles, of course, where 'Method 1' and 'Method 2' originated.) I'd change the title of the article that started all this to: "How Many Sources Do I Need?", because newcomers may not recognise from the current title what it is talking about.

[tatewise]

I'll go along with all those proposals.
In particular "splitting" and "lumping" concur with the Legacy definition and avoid the implication that "splitter" and "lumper" apply to the user rather than the source.