Jump to content

Brian Yokum

Member Since 04 Jul 2009
Offline Last Active May 13 2018 02:44 PM

Topics I've Started

Master Sources/Source Details/Citations

12 July 2017 - 10:07 PM

Treat master sources and source details like places and place details.  Then one could cite the combined master source / source detail as the "source" in multiple citations that would effectively be linked together.  The citation details would be limited to things like the quality of the "source" for documenting specific facts or notes specific to that use of the "source".  The master source could be something like "Louisiana Death Certificates" and  the source details would include the specific certificate details.  An image of the certificate could be attached to the specific source detail in the master source.  Any change made to the master source or the source details would be reflected everywhere that combination was cited.


Alternately, others have proposed some kind of citation linking, rather that simply memorize/copy creating new copies that need to be edited individually.


This is one of the main reasons I've had to resort to extreme splitting of my sources.


More details can be found in this forum post: http://forums.rootsmagic.com/index.php?/topic/17407-master-sources-source-details-citations/




Burials in Church Records

04 July 2017 - 12:33 PM

Church records generally include burials.  Do most people document this with the built-in burial fact, or with some other user-defined fact?  I ask this, because I have generally used the burial fact to document the location where someone was buried.  The fact that the burial is documented in the church records does not necessarily mean that they were actually buried at the church.  Perhaps funeral services were held there, but the person was buried in some other cemetery.


RootsMagic uses burial information to document death when the details of the death are unknown.  So this seems to be a benefit using the built-in burial fact for this, rather than a user-defined "funeral" fact or similar.


How to Best Document Presumed Relationships

04 July 2017 - 12:23 PM

I'm interested in what others do to document presumed relationships.  For example, in birth and marriage records, it usually indicates the parents of the individual in the record.  I usually view this as some evidence of a marriage of the parents.  I'd like to record this non definite source of marriage somewhere.


I usually add the source to a marriage fact for the couple, since this appears to be the only place it will show up in narrative reports, and it is also some evidence of a possible marital relationship.  Of course, the report says they "were married", but that may not always be true.


I've also tried adding it as a family source for the couple, but that doesn't appear to show up in the narrative report.  I've also considered adding it as general sources for both parents.


I really feel there is value in this source, in a preponderance of evidence way, particularly when I have multiple records that show the couple as parents.

Shared Facts

03 July 2017 - 10:52 AM

What are the downsides of using shared facts?  Are there issues with GEDCOM transfers or syncing with other services?


I am particularly interested in using the "witness" role for things like baptisms and marriages.  Currently I am adding these to the notes for the non-shared marriage fact, then adding a user-created "Witness" fact to the witnesses, but this seems like a lot of redundant data entry.  I also have this data in the actual transcription of the source.


Also, what happens to those individuals who share a fact but are not in the database?  Is there any way to use this information, or is it only accessible when looking at the shared fact itself?


Templated Sources in GEDCOM and Data Exchange

02 July 2017 - 01:04 PM

One of the things that drove me to "extreme splitting" was the mangling of templated sources when exported through GEDCOM and possibly other data exchanges.  It seems like an option to export the completed footnote sentence as the source, rather than separating the "source" and "source details" in the GEDCOM, would be helpful.


A similar option could be provided to prepend "place details" to "place".  As others have pointed out, it would be nice to have things like cemetery names and church names survive the transfer somehow.


I know a lot of this is governed by GEDCOM and other standards.  I hate not being comfortable using certain features of RootsMagic out of fear that one day I may not be able to extract that data.