Jump to content


Photo

Short Foot Note Issue


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Kevin

Kevin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 14 June 2013 - 08:24 PM

It seems to me that the Short Footnote must contain all the Source Details as the Footnote. I have tested using Source Templates as well as the !MyFreeForm3.

For example (All Citations are using the SAME source and the !MyFreeFrom3):

Master:Footnote Field contains "FootNote"
Master:Short Footnote field contains "SFootNote"

Citation #1:
Details field contains "Details"
Key field contains "Key"

Citation #2:
Details field contains "Details2"
Key field contains "Key2"

EndNotes on Report:
1. FootNote, Details, Key
2 SFootNote, Key2


Because Citation #2 is same source as #1, Short Footnote is printed for #2 but the the Details field is missing. So if I have 100 different citations that all use the same source (all referencing different people (the Key) for example), the Details field is almost meaningless because it only show for the 1st Citation and not for the other 99 even though all 100 are different.

Of course this is not a problem if using Extreme Splitting of Sources.

#2 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6162 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 09:48 PM

You are correct in observing the conditions under which the Short Footnote is outputted, whether for sources using complex templates or those having the simplest (Free Form). And, yes, if you use my !MyFreeForm3 template, you must understand how the Short Footnote works so that you select all the key source details for inclusion in the Key field. But that does not necessarily mean all the source details need be repeated in the Short Footnote - some may not be key. Let's take an example from the standard templates to illustrate:

Census, U.S. Federal (Online images)
Detail fields are [CivilDivision], [ED], [PageID], [HouseholdID], [Person], [AccessType], [AccessDate]. The first five are in the Short Footnote (because they are key to finding the source), while the last two are only in the full Footnote (and are not key to finding the source). The Short Footnote is further shrunk by using abbreviations where possible ( [Jurisdiction], [Schedule], [CivilDivision], [HouseholdID] are abbreviated) and by omitting some fields from the Master Source, in this case [ItemType], [WebSite], [URL] and [CreditLine] and omitting some text (" enumeration district (ED)").

The flaw in your use of !MyFreeForm3 which leads to your problem is that you only have a Person as Key when there probably should have been additional data included in the Key, as in the example above. (I fear I may have contributed to your problem with an early example I posted to the SQLiteToolsForRootsMagic wiki which made the same mistake when trying to illustrate how !MyFreeForm3 made even more succinct Short Footnotes than the built-in Free Form while maintaining comparable export integrity)

Let's characterize the full Footnote as "verbose and complete" and the Short Footnote as "succinct but dependent" when properly designed and utilised. Extreme Splitting will, as you observe, produce mainly full Footnotes in reports because there is less opportunity for a source to be re-cited; thus the footnotes or endnotes will be verbose. Moderate splitting or lumping, as is inherent in the design of the built-in source templates gives much greater probability of source reuse; thus foot/endnotes will, on average, be more succinct.

Tom user of RM7550 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> RMtrix-tiny.png app, a bundle of RootsMagic utilities.


#3 Kevin

Kevin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 18 June 2013 - 08:42 AM

Tom I am curious as to what information you place in the 'Details' field in an !MyFreeForm3 entry, when Key also contains data, since the Details would then have a good change of never being displayed in any footnote. Could you give a couple of examples?

#4 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6162 posts

Posted 18 June 2013 - 09:29 AM

To follow from the example using the Census, US Federal (On-line images) template, a corresponding !MyFreeForm3 citation would have in its Details field just the data that belongs to the former's [AccessType] and [AccessDate] fields, e.g., "image downloaded 18 Jun 2013". The Key field would contain all the data from the rest of the former's Source Details fields. The resulting footnote has all the data that is recommended in Evidence Explained, just in a different order.

If a given master source is re-cited repeatedly for different keys, then, yes, the various values of [AccessType] and [AccessDate] will not be outputted by RM as currently implemented, for either template. Is that serious? Probably not, in this case, because the Key value together with the Master Source ([Footnote] or [ShortFootnote]) value is sufficient for someone to look for the original source and have a reasonable chance of finding it.

The judgement of what is truly key in the citation may be affected by the Fact it supports. This is especially the case for Census citations and Census or Residence facts. The Fact's Place and Place Detail values provide clues to locating the person in a census database. Some people also may include the details down to the census page in the Fact Description or Note. One might choose to exclude those particulars from the citation footnotes because they are deemed redundant. Such a decision might not be appropriate for persons with a common name such as Smith but could work well for uncommon names.


Tom user of RM7550 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> RMtrix-tiny.png app, a bundle of RootsMagic utilities.