magmatic

Oh boy, I don't think I am ready to get into SQlite, although I do have the capability. For a lot of these it might be simpler to just do it manually. There are not that many.

How do you know what the RM fields are actually called in the code vs. the name used for display.

Yes, I agree. In most cases I can just leave my free form sources alone. New sources will go into new templates, which is why have been wondering about how to do the Interview source.

Another issue I have run into is that in my old program you could actually embed a super-script footnote into some text (as the source for that statement), say in a note or narrative. When the file was ported to RM, it came across as [CIT: ]64. Well, I have to go back to the original data and see that source 64 was. I have a lot of cleanup like that to do. And figure out how to specify what source pertains to what text.

Sometimes it will tell me a clue as to what the source was in brackets. I don't know why at this point.

I kind of like the idea of  Person source, rather than an Interview source. I too have struggled with the distinction between Conversation/Phone Call/Actual Formal Interview.

OK. I think I'll continue my William John (Bill) practice. Shy away from the Nickname field. And perhaps ALSO use the Alternate Name fact for the Bill.

Thank you for clarifying this.

t is true, I don't like the Root Magic's answer!

It has been said a source is modeled on a Book. A book has an author. An interview has an interviewee, which is like the author of the interview. So, why does a Book source have Author in the Yellow area, but an Interview source does not have the Interviewee in the Yellow area? Instead, it has the Owner. Huh? As it is, I have to enter the interviewee all over for each time I use the source. I don't have to re-enter an author of a book.

In other words, the Interviewee is general information for the source, not specifics for each citation (like page number of a book.) But that is not what the RM interview templates have.

So, the interview templates are useless to me. I will have to make my own Interview template. Thank you for clarifying that in my mind.

Perhaps I will delve into Evidence Explained sometime. And yes, I am testing with a test database.