Filter for events matching dates

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repository information in citations

Brad Rogers
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 18:47:16 +0100
"Michael Stockhausen" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello Michael,

>I do not know about Ancestry, but on Familysearch I have discovered
>several mistakes (not only on the database, also on microfilms)

Since Ancestry have acquired some of their data from FamilySearch (FS),
any errors in FS will be carried across to Ancestry.  It should be
obvious that any error discovered and corrected in one, may not be
corrected in the other.

--
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
They really dig me man, and I dig them
To Be Someone (Didn't We Have A Nice Time) - The Jam


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org

attachment0 (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repository information in citations

Nick Hall
In reply to this post by enno
On 10/02/2019 15:02, Enno Borgsteede wrote:
> If this is the case, the best solution is to file a bug report/change
> request to have the call number and repository included in the report.
> That should not be too difficult, IMO, although I've never changed
> reports myself.

That would appear to be a reasonable feature request.

Nick.




_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repository information in citations

Nick Hall
In reply to this post by enno
On 10/02/2019 15:17, Enno Borgsteede wrote:
>
> When we had a discussion about evidence style citations on the
> developers list, someone argued that Ancestry is not the repository,
> because it's not where the real documents are. In his opinion,
> Ancestry is the publisher instead, and I can understand his reasoning.
>
Yes.  Web sites are generally considered to be publishers.

Nick.




_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repository information in citations

Ron Johnson
In reply to this post by Dave Scheipers

Of course, the best thing is to photocopy/download/photograph copies of the
relevant pages from your sources and attach them to the citations...

On 2/10/19 10:57 AM, Dave Scheipers wrote:

> But that is just it. You may have viewed/obtained the document from
> the national archives. I can get the exact same document from
> ancestry. someone else may use familysearch. The repository only has
> meaning to ourselves.
>
> Knowing that, we need to provide in the Source/Citation records enough
> information about what we found so others can duplicate what we found,
> independently, if they are so inclined.
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 11:30 AM Michael Stockhausen
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> But to what end. Do we include every place that someone can find the
>>> U.S. 1850 Federal Census? Ancestry, FamilySearch, FS History centers,
>>> National Archive repositories? This is why the repository, in my
>>> opinion, is only relevant to the researcher in their own endeavors.
>> No, if the original is kept in the National Archive and this is the document
>> I viewed, I only mention this. If I view Ancestry and they cite the National
>> Archive, I mention these two.
>> Familysearch writes: "To communicate the quality of a source, a citation
>> needs to specify the source of the source"
>>
>>
>>> Think of a book as the source. It can reside in every library both
>>> public and personal. The relevant information is the title and author
>>> of the book which is enough information for someone else to find the
>>> same information.
>> There is a major difference between published works and unpublshied archival
>> material
>> " According to the Chicago Manual of Style : Full identification of most
>> unpublished material usually requires giving the title and the date of the
>> item, the series title (if applicable), name of the collection, and the name
>> of the depository. "

--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repository information in citations

GRAMPS - User mailing list
In reply to this post by Michael Stockhausen
I'm proceeding on the assumption that digital repositories are in their infancy. 

The digital files (that we currently consider high-quality) will be replaced as digitizing technology improves.

That tools like Google Lens will evolve to find the highest available grade of digitization and log locations of the real-world object instances.

So my feeling is that a source will existing in multiple repositories, in varying grade incarnations, with instances that age out to digital obsolescence.

Let's hope we (and the world) see the day when our repositories will seed a "Ready Player One" grade virtual simulation where we can sit in the research library at Skywalker Ranch reading a reconstruction of that 1729 newspaper page listed as one of your sources... And where you can feel the impression of the letter dies from the press and smell the pulp & ink like Ben Franklin printed that issue of the Pennsylvania Gazette last night. 



On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 6:45, Michael Stockhausen
I am still trying to figure out how to best do my citations.
On the website of the National Archives I found this general statement:
 

Researchers also should understand that the citation of an unpublished item, regardless of format, has three parts:

  1. description of the item;
  2. name of the aggregate of items to which it belongs (group, collection, or book title); and,
  3. the name and location of the repository that holds this material.
 
This translates rather well into our Gramps vocabulary
1. citation
2. source
3. repository
 
Taking the example of a Census Record:
 
1850 United State Census, Pitt Township, Wyandot County, Ohio; p. 233, family 86, dwelling 79, lines 967-977; June 1, 1850; National Archives Microfilm M-19, Roll 719. “
 
- repository: National Archives, with the “Microfilm M-19, Roll 719” as the call number
- source:
1850 United State Census, Pitt Township, Wyandot County, Ohio
- citation: p. 233, family 86, dwelling 79, lines 967-977; June 1, 1850
 
 
When I create a complete individual report in Gramps, though, the repository part is missing.
Doesn’t anybody else feel the need to include this information in a report?
My workaround is to include the repository in the citation field, at least in a short version.
 
Michael
 
 
 
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org



_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repository information in citations

Brad Rogers
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 21:24:08 +0000 (UTC)
Emyoulation--- via Gramps-users <[hidden email]>
wrote:

Hello Emyoulation---,

>The digital files (that we currently consider high-quality) will be
>replaced as digitizing technology improves.

I doubt it;  One of the reasons for things having been digitised already
is because the original documents are too delicate to handle.  As such,
the aforementioned documents aren't likely to be handled again.  Doubly
so as rescanning would require them to be exposed to the high power
lighting required for good quality.

--
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
First night nerves every one night stand
What A Waste - Ian Dury And The Blockheads


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org

attachment0 (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repository information in citations

Philip Weiss


On Feb 10 2019, at 2:21 pm, Brad Rogers <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 21:24:08 +0000 (UTC)
Emyoulation--- via Gramps-users <[hidden email]>
wrote:

Hello Emyoulation---,

The digital files (that we currently consider high-quality) will be
replaced as digitizing technology improves.

I doubt it; One of the reasons for things having been digitised already
is because the original documents are too delicate to handle. As such,
the aforementioned documents aren't likely to be handled again. Doubly
so as rescanning would require them to be exposed to the high power
lighting required for good quality.


I periodically get notices from Newspapers.com and from NewspaperArchive.com that pages I've bookmarked have been replaced with higher quality images.   And ArkivDigital exists because some folks decided to take high quality photographic images of the Swedish church books where the previous images had been poor quality black and white microfilm.

🤷

Phil



_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repository information in citations

Brad Rogers
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 23:26:37 -0800
Philip Weiss <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello Philip,

>NewspaperArchive.com that pages I've bookmarked have been replaced with
>higher quality images.

Good news.  At least it indicates that people are updating scans.

My natural pessimism may have got the better of me.   ;-)

--
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
I can't do a thing 'cause I can't relax
Independence Day - Comsat Angels


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org

attachment0 (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repository information in citations

GRAMPS - User mailing list
In reply to this post by Dave Scheipers
On 10/02/2019 14:59, Dave Scheipers wrote:

> The conventional norm is that repositories are not part of the
> source/citation to document the fact presented in a report. To include
> repository information would require a rewrite of all reports.
>
> But to what end. Do we include every place that someone can find the
> U.S. 1850 Federal Census? Ancestry, FamilySearch, FS History centers,
> National Archive repositories? This is why the repository, in my
> opinion, is only relevant to the researcher in their own endeavors.
>
> Think of a book as the source. It can reside in every library both
> public and personal. The relevant information is the title and author
> of the book which is enough information for someone else to find the
> same information.
>
> Dave

That  is true usually, but not always.

For example I may have marriage certificates of say, Patrick Kelly, from
the on-line Irish GRO database and of Mary Kelly, a tattered paper copy
from my grandmother's attic. There's much more evidence that Mary
Kelly's is of interest to me, and that evidence comes from the repository.

To show this in Gramps would complicate the relationships between
citation, source and repository.

David Lynch








_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Repository information in citations

Dave Scheipers
I talked with my local librarian about this issue. And yes, she said
documents that are sourced from the family like you posit do need to
have more information regarding repository. But I think Gramps as
already configured can handle this. So for your example:

Source Title: Marriage Certificate
Publication: Document in the possession of Your Relative

You could have several Sources of these types of documents by type of
document and by relative or one generic source per relative where the
type of document gets added to the citation.

My librarian made a special mention of things like non published items
at college archives where more information is needed. But again, using
the fields already provided, I would make:

Tile: XYZ University Archives
Author: ZYX Collection

Nick H made mention that websites; Ancestry, FamilySearch, etc, are
actually considered Publishers. So...

Title XYZ Database
Author: State/National Archives
Publisher: Ancestry.com

I am still re-looking at my Source list to see which sources may need
to have this "Publisher" information added. I will still keep Ancestry
and FS as repositories though.

The key my librarian said: Are you providing enough information so
that someone else can find the same information. And in most cases, I
am providing scans and pdf's of the information found so the someone
else does not have to go looking for it.

But the short answer remains, the part of the database known as
Repositories should be considered  for the researcher's use only and
the current configuration of Source/Citation and how they are added to
reports should guide us in how we enter information to provide someone
else the necessary information.

And as always, there is no one answer. We each enter the information
in a way that works for us.

Dave

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:44 AM David Lynch via Gramps-users
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 10/02/2019 14:59, Dave Scheipers wrote:
> > The conventional norm is that repositories are not part of the
> > source/citation to document the fact presented in a report. To include
> > repository information would require a rewrite of all reports.
> >
> > But to what end. Do we include every place that someone can find the
> > U.S. 1850 Federal Census? Ancestry, FamilySearch, FS History centers,
> > National Archive repositories? This is why the repository, in my
> > opinion, is only relevant to the researcher in their own endeavors.
> >
> > Think of a book as the source. It can reside in every library both
> > public and personal. The relevant information is the title and author
> > of the book which is enough information for someone else to find the
> > same information.
> >
> > Dave
>
> That  is true usually, but not always.
>
> For example I may have marriage certificates of say, Patrick Kelly, from
> the on-line Irish GRO database and of Mary Kelly, a tattered paper copy
> from my grandmother's attic. There's much more evidence that Mary
> Kelly's is of interest to me, and that evidence comes from the repository.
>
> To show this in Gramps would complicate the relationships between
> citation, source and repository.
>
> David Lynch
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> https://gramps-project.org


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
12