Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Joop

  1. I am a bit lost and hope somebody can help find my way back. I have read nearly everything (also Terry's explanations and examples) but am still puzzled by what the real benefit of the variable is. When should (or must) I use it to get exactly what effect? I understand that it has some extra flexibility (with the [sx] variants) but there must be something more to it that still escapes me. Please help.
  2. Witness Issue

    I also have a nasty witness problem. I expect that while using the early version (I think 8.04) my database got corrupted. I use a Dutch database and the word for witness in Dutch is Getuige. Today I started with 8.08 (I saw no more error reports from users ) and after the conversion I now seem to have two kind of witnesses (the US ones and the Dutch ones). When I try to modify or deactivate the US one, I get an English error message saying that I can't and when I try it with the Dutch one (Getuige) I get a Dutch message saying that it is impossible. This is a big problem since I have a lot of changed sentences in a large database. A side effect of the earlier problems (already in 8.04) is that some of my roles are mixed up, but that is something that I can repair (I have time and (a lot of) patience) but starting all over is not on my preference list. So any help to repair the database and get my back to 1 P and 1 W would be great an very much appreciated. Thanks, Joop van Beek P.S. If the above is not clear or more info is needed, let me know.
  3. Dear TMG forum members In my research I have found a lot of deeds and other documents. In each of them one or more persons of interest are found (playing different roles in different documents). It seemed to me that the history tag would be a great way to store the information in TMG. I make a source for each document and supply the content of the document in the COMMENT tab (second one) and have it print as part of the footnote. I have modified (a copy of) the history tag to allow a more versatile text for each witness (including variable text from that witness' memo. My question is: am I on the right track? This approach seems so neat, simple and versatile that it is almost to good to be true... Concrete example might be a will. In my view this approach will work for a will as well, but I haven't seen people write about it, so... Thanks in advance for your reply and help, regards, Joop
  4. history tag

    Hi Vera, Thanks for your reply on the notes. I guess I'll have to stick to one note type. Regards, Joop
  5. history tag

    Hi Michael, Thanks for your answer. To dig a little deeper: - "The most significant difference...". Agreed, but are there more differences (in reporting maybe or...)? - On the source issue. Suppose I have a photocopy of a will and also the transcript (a small text piece). I store the information as follows: photocopy as an exhibit linked to the source. Transcript as comment on the second source tab (to be printed as part of the source in the end or/and footnotes). Facts/conclusions derived from the information in the will (e.g. birth/death dates, occupations, residences etc.) in the appropriate tags for the person they belong to. Is this a (from TMG perspective) what you would advice (or support)? I know it can be stored in multiple ways, but it would be nice not to find a better way when I am at person 10,000 using a specific approach - About printing the transcribed content of a deed (etc.) as a footnote. Most of them (at least here in Holland) have great text and wording. They are a joy to read. It would be a shame not to print them somewhere and the footnote seemed a great place. Of-course there are the dull ones, but even then, the fact that it was drawn up was of importance (then). So who are we to ignore them? I am very interested in your reasoning for not always printing them. - A TMG question: exactly where and how do I make the distinction between footnotes and end notes? Can I print some data (e.g. the ones including the comments above) as footnotes and some other data (real references) as end notes? When you are on the right track but nobody else is on your track it's getting so lonely and after all, genealogy is also about communication and working together (to me). So maybe I shouls have said "consensus track"? Regards, Joop
  6. Hi all, I have been gathering data (sources) for some years now. Most of it came from queries you can do on the Internet (I'm from Holland and we have pretty good facilities for that, e.g. check out www.genlias.nl). So what I end up with is high quality extracts (in HTML or text) of original certificates (birth, death, marriage and even others). My question is, what is the best (I know, it is personal... ) way to document these sources. The following are two examples of output of queries. 1. www.genlias.nl: search for Jacobus Job Johannes (first name) van (last name prefix) Beek (last name). Bron = source, Geboorte = birth etc. Bron Burgerlijke stand - Geboorte Archieflocatie Streekarchief Voorne-Putten en Rozenburg Algemeen Gemeente: Nieuw Helvoet Soort akte: Geboorteakte Aktenummer: 6 Aangiftedatum: 11-02-1882 Kind Jacobus Job Johannes van Beek Vader Gerrit van Beek Moeder Margrieta Boelhouwer 2. www.groenehartarchieven.nl: search ofr Cornelis Blijleven, marriages, after 1811 and select Willem Blijleven. Overl. = died, won. = living at, etc. Burgerlijke stand - huwelijken Nieuwerkerk aan den IJssel 1851 aktenummer 9 aktedatum 31-5-1851 bruidegom Willem Blijleven (58 jaar; arbeider; won. N; geb. te Noorden) bruid Johanna Jansen (40 jaar; z.b.; won. N; geb. te Aarlanderveen) vader bruidegom Cornelis Blijleven (overl.) moeder bruidegom Elsje Meerlo (overl.) vader bruid Willem Jansen (overl.) moeder bruid Johanna Nieuwkerk (overl.) getuige Klaas van der Hoeven (64 jaar; arbeider; won. N) 2e getuige Jan Rietveld (64 jaar; arbeider; won. N) 3e getuige Poulus Tom (63 jaar; vrachtrijder; won. N) 4e getuige Jan van der Velden (40 jaar; kleermaker; won. N) As you can see, great information and well (source) documented. How would TMG help me best to get this well structured in the database so as to later get it out again (well formatted ). Thans very much for any help! Joop van Beek (starting user of TMG)
  7. Terry, Michael, thanks a lot. I've not only learned a lot about TMG but also about high quality sourcing and citing. Both of you have been a great help! Regards, Joop
  8. Hi all, In dutch naming before 1800 or so a lot of patronymics are used. Sometimes they kind of expand the given name and sometimes they are more or less a last name (which might appear later in another source). What is the best practice to handle them in TMG? I have now designated the Other name field as such, but am not sure how this will work out. BTW I also have used the prefix of surname for the surname prefixes (used a lot in Holland). I am not sure what a sensible use of the prefix of given name is. I now designated it as a persons call name. Any help is very much appreciated. Regards, Joop
  9. patronymics

    Hi Michael, You've been a great help. I am starting to understand now. Just use any style you want to make up and take care of the way it is printed. The same is probably true for the places. Talking about place names: I haven't found something like a Place name - var. In Holland that would be a very nice feature. Some place (the same) changed names over the years and it would be great to keep track of that. Did I overlook it? Thanks a lot, Joop
  10. patronymics

    Hi Virginia, Thanks for pointing me to these threads. I've read them and noticed them all to be pre-TMG 7. This makes me wonder if the new (more flexible) fields in naming might help. People in many of the threads seem to use the Suffix field, but I have seen nobody use the Other name field. Given that you can make up your own sort name variants, it would seem rather usable for the purpose of storing patronymics. Another thing is that, from my point of view, naming (since history) is meant to uniquely identify a human being (or for that matter any object). In small, local societies it sufficed to use the name of a father, village, farm etc. and combine it with a "given name". If we want to store this information in a structured way (that is, without losing the context), we should - my opinion - use fields with a fixed meaning. TMG 7 is fairly flexible in that respect, hence my approach to define beforehand the exact meaning of a field and stick to it. In TMG one can always use extra name tags to cope with variations but a patronymic is not a variation, but part of a real name found in a source. Sorry to be so elaborate about this, but in nearly all older records one finds the patronymic problem and Genealogy is about old records. So it seems that handling it right (what is that? ) seems to deserve a fair amount of attention, especially in software packages that support storing genealogical data. Even a Master package like TMG hasn't addressed this item by name (but it has by flexibility). So the question to colleague genealogists is: how do we use this flexibility to structure the patronymic information found in older records? Looking forward to your thoughts about this subject. Regrads, Joop
  11. Thanks Terry, Your suggestion is in line with Michael's and makes a lot of sense I think. To dig one step deeper... Is there such a thing as "a split lump"? Or, illustrated by an example: Say I have a birth certificate (no, a HTML output of a database query ) provided by the website of archive ARC (www.arc.xx) that says: - Place (of certificate's original storage; usually the place of birth): Koudekerk - Begin and end date of the register of the certificates that this one belongs to: 1813-1822 - Inventory where the physical document is stored now (in ARCH): D3 - Page number where this certificate was written down (probably in the register mentioned before): fol. 5v - Number of the certificate: 26 - Date on the certificate: 12-10-1821 - Tag data: the child, parents, witnesses etc. My solution based on your and Michael's suggestions would be: - repository: ARC, include general website address - source: Koudekerk, 1813-1822, Inventory D3 (Place, Period, Location) - citation detail: certificate 26, dated 12-10-1821, page fol. 5v (Number, Date, Page) Is this a "split lump", a "lump of splits", or utterly nonsense? Appreciate your comments (even if you choose the last option ). Regards, Joop
  12. These are great questions, Joop, and as you already know are very much a matter of personal taste. Terry will probably have some great suggestions as he covers sources very well in his Primer and in his on-line Tips. As for standards for publication formats for citing sources in genealogical works, including electronic sources, I believe the most currently accepted is Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace by Elizabeth Shown Mills, available from various sites (I think including the Wholly Genes store). However, you should realize that multiple different ways of entering and storing source data in TMG can actually produce the identical report output source citations in your reports, so this adds to personal preference. The major issue is often called "lumping" or "splitting". You can 'lump" sources into a single TMG source in the Master Source List and have the citations differ by what you put in the Citation Details and/or Citation Memo. Or you can "split" each source citation into a separate TMG source in the Master Source List, putting more into each source definition and less in the CD and CM. The same is true of what you put as the Repository versus what you put in the Source Definition. This is purely a matter of taste. As an example, "my way" is generally to "lump" TMG sources, and to identify TMG repositories as "places" other researchers are likely to know where to go to get the same source, e.g. libraries or institutions. In your case I might cite the organization that transcribed and published the web site as the repository, but would include as that repository address the main URL. I would cite a specific URL web page resulting from a query as a single source, but would include in the Source Comments the search terms that caused that page to be retrieved. I would have separate citations to this single source in each of the tags (possibly for multiple people) that referred to information on that one web page. Each of these specific citations would provide only the details needed for that tag (e.g. the CD on the Birth tag recording only the date and location of birth even though there was marriage and death data also on that page). If I captured the entire page (e.g. copy/paste) or downloaded the photocopy, I would have the URL of the page or photocopy as the source (still including the search terms that got me there) and link what I captured as an exhibit to the source. My actual way of doing this linkage is a bit more complicated than most, but that is the concept. As these appear to be reputable national sites I would have no problem citing them as sources. But I would cite the transcription page as the source, not the original certificate(s) or source(s) of which it a transcription. On the other hand, I might cite the original certificate if I captured the photocopy, but would note how I got the photocopy in the Source Comments. However, as for the transcriptions, since transcribers can and do make errors, I would do two additional things. First, I would probably include in my Source or Repository information the nature of the data, i.e. transcriptions of certain original sources. Second, I would include in the citation (either in the CD or in the Source depending upon whether I "lumped" or "split") the original source reference of which this information is claimed to be a transcription. At least for my main-line ancestors I would still want to go back to the original sources to verify the transcription and to see what other useful data might be there that was not transcribed. I think I answered all your questions? Hope this gives you ideas, Hi Michael, You most certainly answered the questions as well as gave me a lot to think about. Thanks for the input, I'll try things out for the various types of certificates and sites we have over here. You proved an old Chinese (or was it Joop's ) saying: "software is only as good as the (forum of) people that support it." Regards, Joop
  13. Hi Eddy, I did. Great site, but didn't find the answer I was looking for. My question is rather conceptual. How to cope with good quality web data (usually from a (semi) government like archive) from a referencing point of view. Since you are from Belgium I guess you will have used some of these sites I mentioned as well. They differ somewhat in how they present their data, but essentially all report high quality excerpts of transcribed formal documents. And... more and more of the data is becoming available in this way (other countries as well). So, I thought that - given the possibilities of TMG - and before starting of on the wrong foot that some expert thinking on the subject was/is due. Some universities have been doing research on how to record sources in the Internet age for their fields of study, but I haven't found anything (conclusive) yet that fits genealogy in that respect. So, any thought, idea or suggestion would be great. Regards, Joop P.S. I have applied for the yahoo forum but seem to be pending for admission. Is the forum active?
  14. Hi Michael, Thanks for your suggestions. Let me start by saying that I completely agree with the concept (of proof and evidence). But, in the case of the many dutch web sites provided by national archives I wonder... What happens is that people are transcribing the original documents and enter them in "formal" databases. E.g. www.genlias.nl is a nation wide initiative to cover most (if not all) of the basic records (birth, marriage and death since 1811) in The Netherlands. Transcribing meaning here that at least the essential data is entered in the database that can be searched by the public. Some sites also offer a .jpg of the original document as well, but that is only a few and usually paid for. So, what I guess I am saying is that in these situations it would be great to regard the HTML extract of the database as a high quality and valid source. In some cases the .jpg can be attached as an exhibit. The question than remaining is what to store in what level in TMG (repository, source (type) and citation). I hope you can see how I try to manage a new balance between good old fashioned "see it for yourself" and the "networked society" where we have to live with Internet sources (and some of them are high quality). Wonder what you think of my genealogical philosophies. Regards, Joop
  15. Hi Terry, Thanks for your prompt and informative reply. 1. What comes out of many of the dutch sites is a (formal: they are web sites of public archives) report from a database query (their database, my query). The output is displayed in HTML and can be copied (^C) as such or as plain text. 2. I would like some best practice advice on how to handle this kind of sourcing. Indeed I enter the data in the appropriate tags as you suggest. But... the question is how to cope with the citation, source and repository information. To be specific: what would the repository be (I guess: the name of the archive that provides the database, but does that include the web address?). Next question is: what is the source? My guess the information needed to locate the physical certificate (or other documents). But, how far do I go, will it also include the certificate number (ending up with many sources), or should that be entered in the citation? And lastly what would go into the citation? 3. Up until now I have also been recording the extract (copy/paste) as well (in my former software package). You suggest to create one source definition for each certificate. Does that mean 1 for each birth etc., effectively meaning 1 for each Principle? Or 1 for each birth etc. from that place (and that period) and have the rest of the location data (and the copy/paste of the output of the query) in the citation? All and all, maybe your last suggestion would really help me the most . How do I construct it in TMG? Again thanks for all the help you can offer. Better to start with the correct templates than redo it all over again next year. Regards, Joop
  16. Hi John, Thanks, the UK post was on the auto pilot. Forgot to remove it. Regards, Joop