38 replies to this topic

[keithcstone]

I'm curious about how every is dealing with source specific "reference numbers". I have several genealogy books that assign numbers  to individuals, Family Search assigns reference numbers, etc. It would be nice to follow a "standard" way to track reference numbers in citations, particularly one that would export/import.

 

I see page numbers, and text details, and the REFN seems to be "one per person", but maybe I'm missing something.

 

 

 

 

[zhangrau]

RM does not really create a reference number. It generates a unique RIN (Record Identification Number?) which is used internally to the database to link information in various tables to a common individual. That is a central design feature of every relational database I've ever used. RM allows users to display the RIN, to facilitate jumping from one individual to another via the RM Explorer.

 

The REFN (Reference Number) is optional, and is created by the user. You may have as many REFN per individual as you wish. You may also have multiple AFN identifiers per individual, although the original intent was to assign those on a one-to-one basis, the vagaries of making the IGI and Ancestral File available worldwide led to some duplicate individuals receiving more than one AFN. I imagine that FamilySearch, with their new database design, is encouraging the merging of those duplicates into a single AFN per individual.

 

A Repository can have a Call Number to identify a specific source, just as a library sytem uses call numbers to organize its collection.

[Jerry Bryan]

You may have as many REFN per individual as you wish. 

 

This is correct. However, RM does not in general deal very gracefully with multiple facts of the same type for a person. Multiple facts of the same type make searches a little trickier, and multiple facts of the same type are not supported by People View. So you might consider a user defined fact type for AFN, a different user defined fact type for the Family Search ID, etc. (Well, there's already a built-in fact type for AFN, but you would need to add other ID's as a user defined fact type.)

 

Of course, a disadvantage of the user defined fact type approach is that it is only the RIN or the REFN that can be displayed on every main view for every person. I'm not sure exactly how I would like to see it work, but it would be very nice if RM had better support for multiple and alternate ID numbers for each  person so that ID's from other system could  better be recorded and tracked in RM. For example, it might be nice if the FamilySearch ID could be displayed on every main view for each person.

 

Jerry

[KFN]

Please excuse my reference to GEDCOM and any uses of this standard that are not supported by RM or any other program.  I'll try to define what the REFN tag in GEDCOm means and how I think that it should be used based on my long-time use of the standard.

 

The REFN tag can as zhangrau noted above can exist multiple times in all primary record types (FAM, INDI, SOUR, OBJE, NOTE).  These tags are defined very simply as:

 

"A user-defined number or text that the submitter uses to identify this record. For instance, it may be a record number within the submitter's automated or manual system, or it may be a page and position number on a pedigree chart."

 

The REFN tag also has a subtag TYPE which is used to define the type of REFN that is being used.

 

In my system ALL Individual, Families, Sources, Objects(images) have REFN tags with a TYPE of "Catalog" (noting that this is my library cataloging identifier) As I've said before I have an electronic (and some paper) cataloging system much like a library that contains files with unique numbers (analogues to a "Library of Congress" number) but it is really an accession number.  This way all individuals in my genealogy application have a direct relationship to electronic or paper backup of sources, images, and any Notes that I've maintained and stored external to the genealogy application.

 

In theory I could (but don't) have multiple REFN tags on an individual or family (or other record) that could reference any other numbering system, such as location in a family tree document that I may have or somebody else's work where they have a specific numbering system that I need to refer to often (like a book that number 1000's of individuals but the family structure I am reporting on has only 10's or 100's of members from that work.  The REFN would indicate the number they used to identify the individual and the TYPE would name the work, i.e. "Sven Family Genealogy".  This referencing would work similar and in conjunction with the sourcing referencing but give me and my readers a faster way for connecting to the document without having to follow the Fact->Citation->Source path that can be at times hard to navigate.

 

Sorry again for my long and probably off topic remarks, it is just the way I think and use my experience.

[keithcstone]

Thanks for the advise, maybe if I said what I was trying to do you all can tell me if I'm smoking crack or not. There are several books covering both my father and mother's sides of the family. I've either obtained or created PDFs of these books and I'm OCRing them, essentially reproducing a machine readable galley.

 

I'll have a source, which is the book name, then I have source details on the individuals that looks like this:

 

243 SusANNAH HOFFMAN (37) b. 1804, m. June 15, 1822, Jonas Costner, and lived in or near Dallas, N. C. Later, she m. Jan. 2, 1834, Elisha Withers, Jr. She is said to be bur. at ·Philadelphia Church graveyard. 

Her children: 

Mary Costner .. . .. . ............ 1164 ..... b 1823. 

Barbara Costner .... .. ........... 1165 ..... b 1824. 

Margaret Costner .................. 1166 ..... b 1825. 

Elizabeth Costner ................. 1167 ..... b 1827. 

Jacob Melchi Costner .. ........... 1168 ..... b 1829. 

John Withers . ...... . . . ....... 1169 ..... b 1835. 

Sidney Withers . .................. 1170 ..... b 1837. 

Miles Withers ............. ....... 1171 ..... b 1839.

Sophia Withers ... ................ 1172 ..... b 1841.

Elisha Withers ............. ...... 1173...... b 1843. 

 

I'll reference page 111, and cite the text, book name (source) on the referenced individuals. Each individual has a number assigned by the book's author (something I have in a couple of these books) and I would like to reference it so it's searchable.

 

Since I'm doing this in order to share this research, if I do it in a way no one else understands I'm pretty much wasting my time. With the whole point that someone else can look at say "this information is good, and I can verify it by doing X", I don't want the response to be "what's that for?" 

 

Would other genealogists with more experience than I find that usefull?

[KFN]

Keith,

What I would advocate from my point of view a two part referencing system.

1) Each fact would be backed up or sourced using the standard fact->citation->source system that everyone uses. This supports telling readers where each fact can be check based on the work of others. Since facts can be cited from multiple sources this gives readers some positive references to were you found the information.

2) Because you have books that probably have additional text not generally associated with straight facts (death, birth, ...) and you don't want to just copy the work of others into your documents directly, you can use the REFN number "243" for Susannah Hoffman. This way readers can be directed specifically to the individual and any documentation from that source that that number references. Many of these family books, of which I have collected many myself and have access to at the museum/library I frequent, have a numbering system that is reflected in charts, photos or person to person relationships in text, therefore helping your readers learn and navigate those books easier.

Idea #2 is non-standard but when I do work for others I find that giving them the person numbers from the family histories I reference gives them something more to read when they visit the library. Norway is known for the extensive family and community genealogy books produced by paid researchers, and I'd never want to "give away" their work, but I do like to guide my readers to the places their family is referenced in these books and the secondary REFN numbering system helps. Many of the number actually reflect the location and generation number in the scheme.

[RobJ]

Norway is known for the extensive family and community genealogy books produced by paid researchers, and I'd never want to "give away" their work, but I do like to guide my readers to the places their family is referenced in these books ...

 

Pardon this off-topic query, but this was very intriguing.  I'm a beginner, been using Ancestry.com, FindMyPast, and FamilySearch, and keep getting references to "Norway Baptisms" - and nothing else!  It's a useful tool, but rather limited.

 

Without taking up your time, can you point me to how you find, use, and search these Norwegian resources?  If already discussed or taught, feel free to just point.

[KFN]

If you live in the USA the best place to get these Bygdebøker is at one of the few Norwegian based research libraries. University of North Dakota Grand Forks, University of Wisconsin Madison, Norwegian American Genealogical Center & Naeseth Library Madison, University of Minnesota. You can find these books at individual Bygdelag groups but you would need to know the right lag which requires a good knowledge of where your family came from.

If you Travel to Norway, the book can be purchased within the Kommune, however again you would need to know where to go.

ACOM, and other non-Norwegian based websites have very little online regarding Norway, your best bet is to look for the Norwegian Digital Archive (Digitalarkivet) at the University of Bergen. Most of this is written in Norwegian, but some English.

[RobJ]

Thank you!  Very helpful!  Opened my eyes, this is going to be harder than I thought.  As a relatively typical language limited American, living in Florida and financially strapped at present, direct access to the data is going to be daunting.  (I am hoping to find a link back to Thor, which may not be easy!  I hear the gods can be secretive about their affairs.  But I've a line back to a Marie Thorsdatter, so I can always claim one connection to a Thor!)

 

Not a very social person, but looks like I will need to cultivate indirect access methods, like my cousin in Minnesota from whom I have learned some of my family history.  She has relatives that have traveled to Norway for a family reunion, so perhaps can lead me to additional indirect access.  Names like Skaaden should be relatively easy, but there are too many Ole Pedersen's and Anne Olsdatter's (seem like the ubiquitous Americans John Smith and Robert Johnson, but worse, no real surnames).  I do have some place and farm names though.  Thanks again.

 

Need to find ways to make all this genealogical data available online.  I can't help seeing a market here, for someone with some backing and organizational skills to set up a data sharing web site for authors, with suitable protections for their work, but search access then fee-based page or item downloads.  If it was set up to be secure and advantageous for the authors, there are probably many of them around the world that could take advantage of the service, make more money for their research, a commission for the service provider, and much more widespread access to the data, which is otherwise very hard to find or access.  An added feature could be translation services, could use automated tools, but preferably author authorized translations.  I imagine money driven sites like Ancestry.com might be interested, but their terms are unlikely to be advantageous for authors.  I think it would work better if independent.  Could be run out of a home.  Low overhead means lower costs to users, and more money to authors.

[KFN]

Digitalarkivet is free.  But you will need to know where the individuals came from and when they were born to start the search.

 

The arkive also has Baptismal Info

[Nettie]

I have several family books and I use the reference number in the fact list.  I put in that LeM for Lemaster book and chapter and page/number of the individual [=52]. This is what my adds to Reference No is   'LeMch2=52'  Chandler book is 'CHanch5=165' .  I usually copy the book that I am working with to the clip board and paste then only have to change the id number.  If you copy via the memorize choice, then you may loose what you had on your clipboard. I also have narraitive type articles in the William and Mary Quarterly, there I use the code for WM as a source id  er in the source section.  You could do the same in your fact/event source for a book if your copying that information also.   Then you do not need the reference number.  I use the reference number only if all the facts for the one person are all from one book. 

 

I'm curious about how every is dealing with source specific "reference numbers". I have several genealogy books that assign numbers  to individuals, Family Search assigns reference numbers, etc. It would be nice to follow a "standard" way to track reference numbers in citations, particularly one that would export/import.

 

I see page numbers, and text details, and the REFN seems to be "one per person", but maybe I'm missing something.

 

 

 

 

[karibeth61]

I may be in the wrong topic, but I am curious if there are field names for the Source Reference Number found on the (Master Text tab) and the Detail Reference Number (found on the Detail Text tab) that can be used in customizing sentences? I would like to include these at the end of each of my footnotes (in brackets or parentheses) so that I have this information printed out on reports without having to go into each source/citation to look it up. If there are already ways to bring this information into the footnotes, that would be the better option rather than adding these additional (and redundant) fields to the source templates.

[Jerry Bryan]

The source reference number and detail reference number are not a part of the Source Template Language. At the present time, your only option is redundant fields.

 

The fields are searchable from the Find dialog. You can't find them directly in a source list, but you can find people who have sources or citations which include them.

 

Jerry

[karibeth61]

The source reference number and detail reference number are not a part of the Source Template Language. At the present time, your only option is redundant fields.

 

The fields are searchable from the Find dialog. You can't find them directly in a source list, but you can find people who have sources or citations which include them.

 

Jerry

Thanks, Jerry.

 

(RM won't let me like your comments. Says I've met my quota even though this is the only post I've been on all day. LOL)

[Jerry Bryan]

I should clarify one additional point. Even though the source reference number and detail reference number are not directly searchable in the source list, you can include them in reports from the source list and you can save the reports to a file. You can then search the file with an editor or with something like Microsoft Word. So in theory you can find all the reference numbers that way. Also, you can sort such a report by the source reference number.

 

But the process is pretty clunky. A report like this for all the sources in my database could run to many hundreds if not thousands of pages for my database. In order to make the most effective use of the source reference number and detail reference number, there would need to be enhancements in the Source Template Language and in the Source List facility.

 

Jerry

[History Hunter]

Jerry;

 

Which reports show the source reference number and/or the detail reference number?
(I found the source reference number in a source list report, but have never seen a report showing the detail reference number.)

[Jerry Bryan]

Jerry;

 

Which reports show the source reference number and/or the detail reference number?
(I found the source reference number in a source list report, but have never seen a report showing the detail reference number.)

 

Did you enable the Source Details and the Detail Reference Number in the Source List report? That's where the detail reference number should show up.

Jerry

[History Hunter]

Thanks, Jerry.

I found out what was happening. RM7 does not insert a CR/LF before the detail research notes and detail comments in the source report. Plus it doesn't bold the section titles as it does elsewhere. So; I was looking at the text and not seeing them.

[History Hunter]

Jerry;

 

Here are a few notes that I made for myself. Please let me know if there's something there that will cause me insurmountable issues down the road. Note that I use a very "archival" approach to records management and full-up Evidence Explained citations, so I'm pretty-much forced to use Free-Form citations.

-------------

RM7 Workflow Notes:

 

If one is an “extreme splitter” and treats every item as being a unique source entry that is documented using a free-form citation, then I believe RM7 can be used as follows.

(This approach should allow one to enter sources, their citations and their extraction/transcription as an isolated step having its own Source List report as a check, and do the examination and analysis as a completely separate step having  its own Research report. Of course; it will work much better when the RM team fixes the noted “bugs”.)

 

When entering Source Notes and Source Comments:

1. Use source Ref. Number to contain the original file name of the source image and file the image using that name. If the Master Source name is descriptive, then the Source List report will act as an index linking the file name to a meaningful description. It avoids complicated file-naming schemes and does things more like an archivist would.
2. Use the Source Notes to capture the extraction/transcription. This has the benefit making it possible to get all the raw (unanalyzed) info about a source by printing out just the Source List report.
3. Use the Source Comments to capture key observations about the condition or background of the source. This also appears in the Source List Report and essentially makes it something like an archival “Finding Aid”.
4. Note that the RM7 support team has confirmed that the Source Quality assessment being reported in the Source List report, instead of the Research report, has been logged as a “bug”. In addition; the improper bolding of the citation details and notes, plus them not being set off as paragraphs, has been reported as a “bug”.

 

When entering Detail Notes and Detail Comments:

1. Note that the RM7 support team has confirmed that the Ref. Number is currently “under development”. It does not appear in any report at present, except for the Source List report. It can also be located using the “Search Everywhere” feature. Those results, can be saved, so that may be useful, too.
2. Use the Research Notes to report just the item(s) that one has found in the source and may have a bearing on a Research Question or your purpose in consulting the source. Do not attempt to an extraction/transcription or an analysis of the source.
3. Use the Research Comments to capture just the analytical comments relating to the Research Question  or your purpose in consulting the source. e.g. highlight gaps and inconsistencies in what you’ve found WITHIN THIS PARTICULAR CITED PORTION. Analysis of issues relating to two or more cited portions belong in some form of separate analytical report. One may wish state the Citation Quality metrics in this section, since RM& does not yet include them in the Research report.
4. The Ref. Number in the Research Notes seems not to be used to any extent, but can be included when printing the Source Report. This seems to violate the concept of keeping the source list and research reports separate, so it may not be wise to use it.

[Jerry Bryan]

I have perhaps several comments, but let's take them one at a time. I used to use RM's Free Form template, but now I use templates of my own design. My templates produce Evidence Explained compliant footnote sentences (I think!), but I find them much easier to use than RM's Free Form template or RM's built-in templates. My templates are designed for extreme source splitting, but I think they could easily be adapted for a more lumped approach simply by marking some of the data items to be stored in RM's Source Details. As they stand, my templates store everything in RM's Master Source.

 

With respect to Evidence Explained, most but not all of RM's built-in source templates are based on Evidence Explained. The templates even document for you the page numbers in Evidence Explained from which they are derived. So in theory, the use of RM's built-in templates is fully compatible with Evidence Explained. I just find them too hard to use. They are supposed to make things easier, but for me they seem to make things harder.

 

Jerry