My response is, Why?
We are looking at the source because it was specified in our entry for
that birth, which already tells us that it was in 1856 and probably also
where it happened. We have only to look at the source to locate the
entry in Page 13.
This is likely to be rarely necessary - why bother creating an extra
layer of data?
> Frederico Muñoz wrote:
> "Baptism record of John, 1856, Pg. 13"
> as an example of an insertion in a Sourceref.
> My response is, Why?
> We are looking at the source because it was specified in our entry for that
> birth, which already tells us that it was in 1856 and probably also where it
> happened. We have only to look at the source to locate the entry in Page 13.
> This is likely to be rarely necessary - why bother creating an extra layer
> of data?
For me source references as most closely matched by bibliographical
references: they serve first and foremost to *exactly* point to where
in a source one can find the information. In the above example the
Source itself doesn't tell me anything: remember that *as I use it*
the Source is "Parish of St. John". Telling someone that the birth
certificate "is found in the Parish of St. John" is not sufficient.
Telling them that *within the Parish of St. John" it can be found in
whichever book holds the records for 1856, and in page 13, is much
In other words, the information you mention - year, location - is
present in the event because it is supported by the Source, in
particular a certain "section" of the Source specified by the source
reference. The Source reference is independent of the information of
the event, and here is an example: it is possible (I have one such
case) that a certain birth record that contains a year and a location
is actually contained in a source from a different location and filled
in a different year. One should not need to extrapolate from the event
data to find the source, it should be self-contained. The Sourceref
above doesn't say that the Baptism of John was in 1856... in 99% of
the cases that is the case, but the year that is in the source
references is that year of Book where it is registered, *not* the year
of the event. I have in my family tree people born in 1890 but whose
record is filed in 1920.
This only applies when one uses Repositories, Sources, and Source
References (aka Citations) the way I do, of course. I test the
"correctness" of the approach by using two different "tests":
1) Would a person completely unfamiliar with the family data be able
to tell *exactly* the source of an event by looking at the full
2) How it appears in the Narrative Web-site and other reports, since
sourcerefs here are quite clearly shown as bibliographical footnotes.