Question Basic questions for beginner's genealogist

norwegian_sardines wrote: I'm not sure that the REPO->SOUR->Source_Citation is broken per say, but it has a few issues. Remember... The Source is the high order information and the citation is the specifics within that source(chapter, page, paragraph) if you document that information.

Just to be clear. I completely agree that SOUR and Citation is a good conceptualisation. It is only the REPO I object to. Allowing hierarchical SOUR records would be conceptually simpler, make REPO redundant, and resolve some of the issues discussed. OK, the fields of the SOUR object match poorly with other bibliography systems, that's a different problem, but source citation is good.

Personally, I do not use the REPO at all. For online sources, I can link to the individual records, so REPO does not make lookup faster. Most books exist in many copies, and I have borrowed from different REPOs at different times. Family REPOs are not stable; papers and books are reorganised and given away a bit too often. Physical official archives I have never used. For oral sources REPO does not make any sense whatsoever.

Now, I do see a strong case for using REPO for unique sources in physical locations, it is just that I have not seen enough of it to learn to use it well. However, that could have been handled equally well by a hierarchical SOUR as well.

georg,

Just a quick FYI for citation, end notes, footnotes in a professional history based research paper.

The Chicago Manual of Style suggests the following:

In the notes, first cite the specific archival record, followed by the date (day, month, year), identifier (box/folder/item number), name of collection, name and location of repository.

The bolding is mine!

A bibliography would have less but similar information.

This general "style" would be for any items used in a research paper, (letters, books, photographs, websites).

I'm not sure how you would use hierarchical SOUR records! A source within a source, does what exactly? I only see a page in a book, or a paragraph in a letter, or a timestamp in a recording, or a line or page on a website (when that website is a primary source). Photographs may be stretching the need for a citation but I can already think of how that would still be used.

The style example you post makes a lot of sense when you consult physical and unique records. Talking about a book or research paper, it is not only the repository which makes little sense. «Archival record» makes even less sense.

A source within a source, talking about the real world rather than the data model, is easy to exemplify. A library is a source which contains sources (books) which contain sources (papers). A record is a source, contained in a source (ledger) contained in a source (bound book) contained in a source (collection) contained in a source (branch office) contained in a source (government agency). OK, I exaggerate, but three levels is undoubtedly useful.

Of course, other source-source relationsships would be useful, such as «copy of» or «quoted by», but that's more complicated.

message

Georg said:

The style example you post makes a lot of sense when you consult physical and unique records. Talking about a book or research paper, it is not only the repository which makes little sense. «Archival record» makes even less sense.

Maybe it is a misunderstanding because of language translation and if it is I'm very sorry. But I don't understand this statement. How do these very apparent concepts to me as a librarian make little sense to you. Do you not understand what an "Archival Record" is? Do you not understand what a "Repository" is?

When we talk about a source in research we are actually saying "source record" or "source document". This "source" can be digital or physical and it is normally held in (controlled by) an entity referred to in general terms a Repository, this function is sometimes called being archived or just "Archived". A "Repository" was at one time a physical location (Brick and Mortar) but with the advent of computers and now the internet a Repository can be anywhere and nowhere. But it is still a repository, the holder of an archived piece of information. If you personally hold a document (a bible, birth certificate, etc) you/your personal library can be the "Repository" and you have "Archived" the item or record. My Grand-Aunt was a painter and I've "Archived" several of her paintings as I have for other artists in my family including several manuscripts!

Therefore a library is not a "source record". It is a holder of source records which makes it a repository. Maybe you are confusing the term "Source" as the source of the document (the place you went to find the information) vers. the "Source Record" or "Source Document" which is what you are looking at to extract the data from, this is a misunderstanding that people have because researchers tend to use acronyms and shortened names of things they all believe to be well known by everyone. Just like you may know say "aka" knowing the it means "also known as" but others may think you are gagging on you food or something!

We had a similar discussion several years ago here about "The source of a photograph", is not the same a "Source Document" and therefore you would not use the GEDCOM SOUR record type to save information about who provided the photograph to you. While I agree that is worth keeping the name of the provider of the photograph (this would be called the "Submitter") which unfortunately is not an option in the GEDCOM design. (If I could write PHP code I'd add the connection in the schema so we could maintain a photo submitter relationship).

Klugesherz said:

To display REPO in the "Event and Fact" zone might too, would have simplified the issue...
We are here addressing a hierarchical topic, and We don't have the view of the deeper information

I kind of agree that having the Repository right on the fact/event area would add something to the authenticity of the source! However, if you click on the Source Title within the Fact/Event area you will be taken to the actual Source_Record and it will give you a lot more information about the source including (Author, Publisher, Agency responsible for the source, potentially photos of the cover, AND Repository), much of which would be too much to display within the Fact/Event area.

It cost a little bit work and effort, but finally it was mandatory !!
Fortunately, I didn't have too much members in my family tree.

Here is the result.
--> My list REPO shrunk from ~30 to 5 SOUR entries


Additionally I have set up a rule to address REPO / SOUR / PAGE which suits me well.
And that's the most important !

An overview of my approach
Internet sources


Physical sources


Sure this approach is certainly not the best, and experts might not agree .. sorry for that
But it's the most logical that I found, and my head is tired after 2 days turning in circle .. )

I just read your documentation and all I can say: "it's now mine, too"! Thank you for consolidating everything.

norwegian_sardines wrote: Maybe it is a misunderstanding because of language translation and if it is I'm very sorry. But I don't understand this statement. How do these very apparent concepts to me as a librarian make little sense to you. Do you not understand what an "Archival Record" is? Do you not understand what a "Repository" is?

Of course I understand what a repository is. What I do not understand is why you want to record the repository of a book which you can find, and do find, in identical copies, in a dozen different repositories. It does not help the reader, who would almost certainly look in a different repository, so please explain. Why?

In the context of primary sources I do understand what an archival record is, but please explain what you mean by an archival record when one cites a book or research paper, say a secondary genealogical source on a particular family.

I have never, ever, seen a book cited in the style you suggest in professional papers or books in any discipline that I have studied.

And no, I do not confuse source and repository, either. When I proposed to conceptualise a repository as a source, it simply makes a more abstract and more general data model, which makes data processing easier. It would not change how you interpret it as a user or how the software displays it in a report, the repository is still there (when needed). It is just not represented differently from the source in the data model. We had already established that it is far from obvious, in may cases, what constitutes a single source. Nested sources would allow us to record each level of sources or collections of sources in one consistent way.

What you seem to forget is that a main point of sources is to allow the reader to recover the source, to verify or elaborate, and that in genealogy, the reader is very often yourself 10 or 20 years into the future, or our descendants even further into the future. Repositories, especially private ones, are a little too likely to be reorganised to serve a purpose in that timeframe. What is the most

Georg ask:

What I do not understand is why you want to record the repository of a book which you can find, and do find, in identical copies, in a dozen different repositories. It does not help the reader, who would almost certainly look in a different repository, so please explain. Why?

First of all a proper end note/footnote/bibliography for a research paper requires the location of where you found the information.This is documented in the most prominent styles for this type of paper including "Evidence Explained". The style does not care that the source can be found in multiple places, it only cares where you went to find it. You can via bibliographic notes indicate that the source is also located at several other places or that the source you used is now located at a different place. Second, the use of a "found at location" (aka Repository) is to assert that you actually search for and found the item at a specific place. This is just like criminal evidence that you always state where you found the item in relationship to the fact/event. Good documentation tells the reader that you actually found the item, on what date and read the documentation rather than implying that you read the document without saying where.

Georg ask:

please explain what you mean by an archival record when one cites a book or research paper, say a secondary genealogical source on a particular family.

Technically, archives consist of records that have been selected for permanent or long-term preservation on grounds of their enduring cultural, historical, or evidentiary value. Archival records are normally unpublished and almost always unique, unlike books or magazines of which many identical copies may exist. This would include but not limited to (Government Records, Church Records, letters, papers, photographs, computer files, scrapbooks, financial records, or diaries created or collected by the individual), and are generally referred to as "Primary Sources". However, a second area of "Archival Record" such as the works of other researchers and data collectors/transcribers that have been researched and archived in some repository can be used as a source. These are considered "Secondary Sources" and are not considered in any research project to be 100% accurate. In a court proceeding they might be considered "hearsay", when possible the information should be backed up by a primary source. In medical research a previous study may be used as a starting point by a researcher going forward, BUT the initial research may be brought into question by review boards unless the second researcher did some validation of the first/initial research.

Georg said:

I have never, ever, seen a book cited in the style you suggest in professional papers or books in any discipline that I have studied.

If you are referring to The Chicago Manual of Style Many universities require students to use the "Chicago Style" Including the ones I've attended for my Undergraduate, Graduate and now my Doctoral Studies. "Professional Papers" may be different, I have not written many of these that were published and when I did they cited a Repository for data that I did not collect myself, data I created/generated did not have a Repository because the data was part of my work and was available via my place of business.

In conclusion. I would suggest that anyone who needs a refresher on Citations and Bibliography for Historical Analysis, Citation & Source Usage to consult "Evidence Explained" by Elizabeth Shown Mills. It has been awhile since I've reviewed her work but it can be eye opening.

hermann wrote: I just read your documentation and all I can say: "it's now mine, too"! Thank you for consolidating everything.

Thanks, you're welcome

For your information.
In order to keep this information in mind, I synthesized as much as possible theses rules in following documenation

norwegian_sardines wrote: Technically, archives consist of records that have been selected for permanent or long-term preservation on grounds of their enduring cultural, historical, or evidentiary value. Archival records are normally unpublished and almost always unique, unlike books or magazines of which many identical copies may exist.

Finally we are back to address the actual concern.

I agreed from the very start that what you said made sense for /unique/ sources. You appeared to make it out to be valid for /all/ sources, and that was all that I objected to.

Greorg,

This was in answer to your question about, “What is an archival record?”. I then went on to say:

However, a second area of "Archival Record" such as the works of other researchers and data collectors/transcribers that have been researched and archived in some repository can be used as a source. These are considered "Secondary Sources" and are not considered in any research project to be 100% accurate.

The above does not override the need to have a repository in a proper footnote, endnote or bibliography for all sources.

Therefore, in conclusion. You asked two questions.

1)
(Question) Why do I need a repository for a book I can find anywhere?
(Answer) Because good end note/footnote/bibliography All require a repository for where you found the information. This is from my first paragraph.

2)
(Question) please explain what you mean by an archival record when one cites a book or research paper, say a secondary genealogical source on a particular family.
(Answer) Technically it is a unique item produced by a authoritative entity, but it can also be a well researched and documented secondary item that was published and stored for posterity. My second paragraph.

I don’t understand your argument against creating a proper Bibliography! I can only guess that you did not read my entire answer of the two questions you asked, and that the reason for a repository in a bibliography for a historical paper is set by standard for all types of sources. The need for a Repository goes beyond the concept (based on your quote). “ main point of sources is to allow the reader to recover the source, to verify or elaborate”. It is more about telling the reader “where you found the information”.

If you don’t understand this concept, then I’m sorry!

I got curious enough to look up the Chicago Manual of Style which you referred to¹. The example you gave, of an item with an archival record was not in the Quick Guide that I found. More interestingly, I did not find a single item where they suggest to include the repository, among a large number of published item types. Can you give an example which recommends citing repository for /published/ material?

Most of my sources are published books and papers. Primary sources would be better, of course, but I prioritise my time to look up primary sources where I have most reason for doubt, and the published work always give good clues about what to look for. That is probably the case for most users.

Anyway, I do want to create a proper bibliography. It is just another unsolved problem, for different reasons than those we now discuss. I have seriously tried to transform the GEDCOM data into the data model for bibliography management software (bibtex to be precise), but too little information is recorded in the GEDCOM source model. I have not had the time to pursue it.

And BTW, I do record the repository, where necessary, in GEDCOM, but using the PUBL field of the source record, as I would in other bibliography software. The main reason I would not always record the repo is because I would have to duplicate many sources, which I have used several times, borrowed from different repositories each time. Maybe I should have done if I had been an academic in history, but maths and computing is my field, so I take the pragmatic stance. If I and anybody else can refind the source, the bibliography is good enough. (Styling (whether Chicago, Vancouver, Harvard, or others) is computer work; I do not do that by hand.)

There are other problems more worth solving. (1) What if, source A says that source B states fact X. How do you code that properly in GEDCOM? I want to record both A (because that's my source) and B (because I need to remember to look it up). This happens all the time, but the only solution seems to be a NOTE. (2) How do you code the source/repo in GEDCOM so that a properly styled bibliography/notes can be computer generated?


¹ www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citat...itation-guide-1.html

Here are three examples of the information that should be retain for a proper bibliography for several examples. I've highlighted the information that is part of the Repository. A "digital derivative" is something that is based on another source and is the closest I could find in my resources at hand.



Following you will find also a leading universities examples to their students about citing archival material which I include to mean both primary and secondary (derivatative) sources based on the concepts put forth by "EE".

Guide to Archival Research

How to cite archival materials

You must cite archival sources used in your research, whether you simply make reference to a source, quote directly from it, paraphrase it, or reproduce an image in your work. The form of your citation is determined both by where it appears in your paper and by the citation format required by your professor or research discipline (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago).

Regardless of which format you use, citations of archival materials typically include four key elements:

1. Title: usually the title given by the archives to a file or item; in the absence of a title provide a short description
Nova Scotia Task Force on the Status of Women Reports
Letter from Jane Smith to John Doe


2. Name of fonds or collection: the name given by the archives to the fonds or collection
David and Marilyn Janigan Map Collection
Faculty of Health Professions fonds


3. Reference code: sometimes called an identifier. Similar to call numbers used to locate items within in a library. Dalhousie University Archives' reference codes typically include a collection identifier (e.g., UA-2 or MS-3-245), and numbers that identify the specific box and folder.
UA-22, Box 175, Folder 2
MS-3-46, Box 23, Folder 40


4. Repository and location: the name of the archives or library and its geographic location
Dalhousie University Archives, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Georg said:

And BTW, I do record the repository, where necessary, in GEDCOM, but using the PUBL field of the source record

The Repository is not the same as the Publisher. For example: The Publisher of a Census is usually a government or church entity, while the Repository of the Census could be Ancestry, Family Search, The Norwegian National Archive, etc!

You keep repeating what we agree about, instead of addressing the apparent disagreement. I ask about published books, and you pile up more examples of archival records. We agree about the archival records. My point is merely that a genealogical database has to deal with all sorts of sources, and you seem to expect your guidelines for archival research to generalise universally.

norwegian_sardines wrote: The Repository is not the same as the Publisher. For example: The Publisher of a Census is usually a government or church entity, while the Repository of the Census could be Ancestry, Family Search, The Norwegian National Archive, etc!

Of course it is not the same, but it hardly matters because (1) I cannot auto-generate a styled reference from the GEDCOM data anyway, and (2) the repository is primarily needed when the material has not been published, i.e. there is no publisher. If I were to redo it today, I would probably have used REPO records, but it won't make the source references any more useful or better styled.

Georg said:

you seem to expect your guidelines for archival research to generalise universally

YES, for all historical/genealogical sources used to assert a fact or event!

What is your definition of “published book“? For the purposes of THIS discussion it does not include “Derivative Volumes” such as in Norway a Bygdebok. Bygdebøker are published derivative books but due to their “historical significance“ and potential uniqueness of both data and distribution get treated like a birth certificate.

You need to understand that we are in the realm of historical research which views a published book to be one that may have a distribution of millions vs a derivative historical book that may have a distribution of 100.

But again.... as I’ve said before (maybe you did not read or understand everything I wrote),

The need for a Repository goes beyond the concept (based on your quote). “ main point of sources is to allow the reader to recover the source, to verify or elaborate”. It is more about telling the reader “where you found the information”.

and because of the limited distribution of these derivative published historical book telling the reader that you found a derivative historical book is what “EE” wants you to place in a bibliography. I showed you an example of a Derivative Online database, which would hold true for books of the same nature!

To answer your question, I used «published books» to refer to books published in such numbers that any librarian would be able to locate a copy. I.e. books where the reader would contact his own library, rather than that of the author. Bygdebøker fall in this category as far as I have experienced, and so do most other genealogical books. As a matter of fact, I have consulted these books in more than one repository.

You make a good point that many historical books may, even if published, be rare enough to require different treatment. I'll keep that in mind for when I run into such a case.

Georg,

I’m done! You can believe what you think is right, it is your database.

BTW... I can publish a single copy book, place it in a genealogical library that copies their collection to WorldCat and a librarian any where in the world could find it. This would meet your criteria for not needing to record a Repository, in research circles, you would be wrong!

As I said, I’m done with this, you would not be correct within the circle of genealogical historians I associate.

So, I will close this exciting topic about the "Sources"
A lot of interesting information have been shared.
By following the last exchanges, I will finalize this topic with Bertkoor's conclusion

No matter what approach you take, it will never be perfect and it's always a compromise.

Conclusion :
The only thing that matters is that the information you will highlight can be verified.
Also, that you have given enough details to show how you managed to get to the right information.so that everyone can do the same

So now to the next question
During your genealogical researches, I'm sure that for some specific individual, you have collected enough information (written documents, oral information, photos) that you wish to tell a story of that character.
Like a short story book.
Does webtrees allow this?
Is there a specific field, module, which would allow "telling the story of this character" ?

Thanks in advance