Short Foot Note Issue
Posted 14 June 2013 - 08:24 PM
For example (All Citations are using the SAME source and the !MyFreeFrom3):
Master:Footnote Field contains "FootNote"
Master:Short Footnote field contains "SFootNote"
Details field contains "Details"
Key field contains "Key"
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.
Posted 17 June 2013 - 09:48 PM
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.
Posted 18 June 2013 - 08:42 AM
Posted 18 June 2013 - 09:29 AM
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.