Jump to content
Joop

sources from the Internet

Recommended Posts

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joop,

 

It doesn't help to have this post in two forums; it will just divide the responses. I deleted the copy of this post that you added to the UK section because I think this forum is the best location for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joop,

 

Sorry, but I can't see enough on the site you refer to to understand what it is you are seeing. Are you seeing images of the actual certificate and making the extracts yourself, or are you seeing an extract made by someone else?

 

Secondly, are you asking with to do with the data itself, or how to record sources to cite in support of the data you enter? If you are asking what to do with the data, I would enter it into appropriate Tags in TMG - typically Name tags, Parent/child Relationship tags, Birth tags, and Marriage tags. There may also be other tag types that these sources would support. Then, create citations to the sources for each tag in which you record data from that source.

 

I would not record the extract itself in TMG, but other users would. If I were going to do that, I would create one source definition in TMG for each certificate, and enter the extract in the Comments field for that source, or attach a text file that contains the extract as an exhibit. You could also attach the extract to the tags in which you record the data, but since each certificate is likely to support several tags, that seems ungainly to me.

 

If you question is about how to construct the source definitions in TMG, that's a different issue which we could also offer suggestions on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terry briefly discussed recording the data found, and possibly entering an extract. If your question is how to enter a source that cites other sources, that is different, and you will get a variety of replies. That was why Terry was asking what you were really seeing: an image of the original source or just citations or extracts concerning original sources.

 

I prefer to always create a TMG source and enter citations to what I actually saw. So if the on-line source only contains citations to other sources, then I would cite the on-line URL as the source since that is what I saw. I would then put the source(s) cited on the web page as part of the data I entered in either the TMG Citation Detail or the TMG Citation Memo when I create a citation to the on-line source on the birth or marriage or other TMG event tag. To me that is more honest a citation, because my database and citations are saying this is where this on-line source that I viewed claims there is a record of this data, but I haven't seen it myself. I would then make myself some kind of research task to check those cited sources myself to verify that this is really about this person, to record exactly what that source said, and to be sure that the citation in the on-line record did not have a typo.

 

On the other hand, if the on-line location shows you an image of the original source, and you trust that on-line location sufficiently to not have altered or "cleaned up" the image in any way, then I would feel I had "seen" that original source and would cite it directly, but I would still add a note that I saw it via an image on-line at this location.

 

But if the on-line source simply claims that the person had this father, mother, spouse, and children, I would consider this to be a very unreliable source. I would record it, but only as a hint or possibility of the situation. I believe that original documents, such as government records, church registers, certificates, etc. should be considered definitive sources. Everything else, and especially on-line genealogies, I consider just possibilities and suggestions.

 

Hope this gives you ideas,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Joop,

I'd like to suggest to have a look on www.tmgned.be, the web site of the Dutch speaking TMG users. There you'll find for instance information about the Dutch handbook for TMG written by Harry Goegebeur. There is also a TMGNED group (for Dutch speaking users) on Yahoo Groups.

Hope to meet you there on the forum.

Eddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joop,

 

It doesn't help to have this post in two forums; it will just divide the responses. I deleted the copy of this post that you added to the UK section because I think this forum is the best location for it.

 

 

Hi John,

 

Thanks, the UK post was on the auto pilot. Forgot to remove it.

 

Regards, Joop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joop,

 

Sorry, but I can't see enough on the site you refer to to understand what it is you are seeing. Are you seeing images of the actual certificate and making the extracts yourself, or are you seeing an extract made by someone else?

 

Secondly, are you asking with to do with the data itself, or how to record sources to cite in support of the data you enter? If you are asking what to do with the data, I would enter it into appropriate Tags in TMG - typically Name tags, Parent/child Relationship tags, Birth tags, and Marriage tags. There may also be other tag types that these sources would support. Then, create citations to the sources for each tag in which you record data from that source.

 

I would not record the extract itself in TMG, but other users would. If I were going to do that, I would create one source definition in TMG for each certificate, and enter the extract in the Comments field for that source, or attach a text file that contains the extract as an exhibit. You could also attach the extract to the tags in which you record the data, but since each certificate is likely to support several tags, that seems ungainly to me.

 

If you question is about how to construct the source definitions in TMG, that's a different issue which we could also offer suggestions on.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terry briefly discussed recording the data found, and possibly entering an extract. If your question is how to enter a source that cites other sources, that is different, and you will get a variety of replies. That was why Terry was asking what you were really seeing: an image of the original source or just citations or extracts concerning original sources.

 

I prefer to always create a TMG source and enter citations to what I actually saw. So if the on-line source only contains citations to other sources, then I would cite the on-line URL as the source since that is what I saw. I would then put the source(s) cited on the web page as part of the data I entered in either the TMG Citation Detail or the TMG Citation Memo when I create a citation to the on-line source on the birth or marriage or other TMG event tag. To me that is more honest a citation, because my database and citations are saying this is where this on-line source that I viewed claims there is a record of this data, but I haven't seen it myself. I would then make myself some kind of research task to check those cited sources myself to verify that this is really about this person, to record exactly what that source said, and to be sure that the citation in the on-line record did not have a typo.

 

On the other hand, if the on-line location shows you an image of the original source, and you trust that on-line location sufficiently to not have altered or "cleaned up" the image in any way, then I would feel I had "seen" that original source and would cite it directly, but I would still add a note that I saw it via an image on-line at this location.

 

But if the on-line source simply claims that the person had this father, mother, spouse, and children, I would consider this to be a very unreliable source. I would record it, but only as a hint or possibility of the situation. I believe that original documents, such as government records, church registers, certificates, etc. should be considered definitive sources. Everything else, and especially on-line genealogies, I consider just possibilities and suggestions.

 

Hope this gives you ideas,

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear Joop,

I'd like to suggest to have a look on www.tmgned.be, the web site of the Dutch speaking TMG users. There you'll find for instance information about the Dutch handbook for TMG written by Harry Goegebeur. There is also a TMGNED group (for Dutch speaking users) on Yahoo Groups.

Hope to meet you there on the forum.

Eddy

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In various replies Joop asked:

... 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... Transcribing meaning here that at least the essential data is entered in the database... it would be great to regard the HTML extract of the database as a high quality and valid source... The question than remaining is what to store in what level in TMG (repository, source (type) and citation)... 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... 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?

These are great questions, Joop, and as you already know are very much a matter of personal taste. :rolleyes: 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,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joop,

 

My rule, and one I think is generally accepted by a lot of users, is based on the principle that you cite what you saw. For data from web sites, this translates to dividing them into two catagories - 1) images of original documents, and 2) data bases or other types of extracts.

 

For images, I treat them like photocopies, which means I cite as if I saw the original document, then add a note that what I was an image or copy of it. That is, I think I saw the original, but because it was a copy there is a chance that the copy differed in some way, as digitally enhanced, or even a slight chance that it was altered.

 

Databases in my mind are like any other form of transcript or extract. They are not in fact the original source, but are someone's reading of that source. The reader may be qualified, or not. In any case, most likely the reader was not familiar with the family, so may have misinterpreted what was written, especially if the original was handwritten. The data may have passed through one or more steps I don't know about before I see it, which has the chance that additional errors were introduced. So, I cite what I saw - the database or extract. If it says it was taken from some other source, I note that, but still, my source is the database.

 

Now, we come to how to construct the source descripition in TMG. The first question to consider is whether you want to construct once source definition for the entire database (this practice is sometimes called "lumping" - that is "lumping" several individual records into a single source definition) or creating one a separate source definition for each original record (this is sometimes refered to a "splitting").

 

If you create one source definition for the entire database, you would enter details about which person's record you are referring to in the CD field of the Citation screen when you make the citation. This method creates fewer sources in the Master Source List, but likely creates longer and more complex footnotes because you will end up repeating details like full name, certificate or record number if given, and maybe dates, in the CD each time you cite the source. That means it gets repeated in each footnote when you create a report. If you want to attach a transcript of the source record you would need to attach it to on (or more) of the citations, or to one or more tags. You could not attach it to the source defintion because many records are covered by a single defintion.

 

If you create source definition for each record you will record all these details in the source definition, with them probably printing for the first footnote, but fewer details for subsequent footnotes for the same source. If you want to attach a transcript you could attach it to the source, since only one record is related to that source defintion.

 

For databases use the first method - I create a source definition for the whole database, then in the CD say something like "record for Thomas Jones, citing certificate #1234."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In various replies Joop asked:
... 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... Transcribing meaning here that at least the essential data is entered in the database... it would be great to regard the HTML extract of the database as a high quality and valid source... The question than remaining is what to store in what level in TMG (repository, source (type) and citation)... 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... 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?

These are great questions, Joop, and as you already know are very much a matter of personal taste. :rolleyes: 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joop,

 

My rule, and one I think is generally accepted by a lot of users, is based on the principle that you cite what you saw. For data from web sites, this translates to dividing them into two catagories - 1) images of original documents, and 2) data bases or other types of extracts.

 

For images, I treat them like photocopies, which means I cite as if I saw the original document, then add a note that what I was an image or copy of it. That is, I think I saw the original, but because it was a copy there is a chance that the copy differed in some way, as digitally enhanced, or even a slight chance that it was altered.

 

Databases in my mind are like any other form of transcript or extract. They are not in fact the original source, but are someone's reading of that source. The reader may be qualified, or not. In any case, most likely the reader was not familiar with the family, so may have misinterpreted what was written, especially if the original was handwritten. The data may have passed through one or more steps I don't know about before I see it, which has the chance that additional errors were introduced. So, I cite what I saw - the database or extract. If it says it was taken from some other source, I note that, but still, my source is the database.

 

Now, we come to how to construct the source descripition in TMG. The first question to consider is whether you want to construct once source definition for the entire database (this practice is sometimes called "lumping" - that is "lumping" several individual records into a single source definition) or creating one a separate source definition for each original record (this is sometimes refered to a "splitting").

 

If you create one source definition for the entire database, you would enter details about which person's record you are referring to in the CD field of the Citation screen when you make the citation. This method creates fewer sources in the Master Source List, but likely creates longer and more complex footnotes because you will end up repeating details like full name, certificate or record number if given, and maybe dates, in the CD each time you cite the source. That means it gets repeated in each footnote when you create a report. If you want to attach a transcript of the source record you would need to attach it to on (or more) of the citations, or to one or more tags. You could not attach it to the source defintion because many records are covered by a single defintion.

 

If you create source definition for each record you will record all these details in the source definition, with them probably printing for the first footnote, but fewer details for subsequent footnotes for the same source. If you want to attach a transcript you could attach it to the source, since only one record is related to that source defintion.

 

For databases use the first method - I create a source definition for the whole database, then in the CD say something like "record for Thomas Jones, citing certificate #1234."

 

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My solution based on your and Michael's suggestions would be:

- repository: ARC, include general website address

That's about what I would do, provided ARC is the archive of the database, which I understand it to be in this case. It may or may not be the archive of the origninal, but that doesn't matter in this case.

 

In my database sources I don't actually define a repository, but end up doing about the same thing by entering the details of the website owner in the source. I suppose using a repository makes good sense here.

- source: Koudekerk, 1813-1822, Inventory D3 (Place, Period, Location)

Yes - and attach the repository. I'd add comments, either in the Comments field of the source def, or the Repository memo, explaining how the archive is creating the data base from original records, and make sure the source element for that are included in the Full Footnote template.

- citation detail: certificate 26, dated 12-10-1821, page fol. 5v (Number, Date, Page)

Yes. I'd add the name of the subject of the record, not that it's actually needed to identify the record, but because it makes it much easier to understand the citation when you produce a report. That's especially true when you are citing in a tag for someone other than the subject - say the name or birth tag of the parents, for example.

Is this a "split lump", a "lump of splits", or utterly nonsense?

Actually, I think it is a mid-level lumper approach. :)

 

In any case, I think it's a very reasonable one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To dig one step deeper... 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)...

 

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)

A more serious reply to your post is that I would cite this as follows:

- Repository:

ARC, include general website address -- (same as yours)

- Source: My source would be the actual URL that I was viewing.

I would customize the output template of the Full Footnote to include both a Citation Detail [CD] and also have a Citation Memo [CM] that was preceded with the text "Transcribed from:". But I would probably not include the [CM] on the Short Footnote. And I would select under Ibid: "Requires same source and [CD]". This forces a full footnote if the [CM] is different for a different citation of the same source.

My Bibliography template would include the [COMMENTS] source element from the Supplemental tab. Example:

TITLE-- ARC Query Result

SUBJECT--van Beek, Jacobus Job Johannes

RECORD NUMBER-- the complete URL of the query result output page which would probably start with "www.arc.xxx/yyy"

COMMENTS-- Query entered: 23 Nov 2008- Jacobus Job Johannes van Beek

- Citation Detail and Citation Memo:

In all cases I would put the database's transcription source(s) for the data on the output page in the Citation Memo, but if there were more than one source referenced on this page only include the source(s) relevant to this specific citation.

CM-- Koudekerk register, volume 1813-1822, Inventory D3, page fol. 5v, certificate #26

My citation detail would depend on the tag I was citing. For example, if I was making a citation to the father/son relationship tag I would have:

CD-- Jacobus Job Johannes van Beek son of Gerrit van Beek

and for the mother/son relationship tag:

CD-- Jacobus Job Johannes van Beek son of Margrieta Boelhouwer

If I were citing the Birth tag I would have:

CD-- Jacobus Job Johannes van Beek born in Koudekerk on 12-10-1821

 

So a full footnote might be:

ARC Query Result; Jacobus Job Johannes van Beek; www.arc.xxx/yyy: Jacobus Job Johannes van Beek son of Gerrit van Beek. Transcribed from: Koudekerk register, volume 1813-1822, Inventory D3, page fol. 5v, certificate #26.

 

A short footnote might be:

ARC Query Result; van Beek; www.arc.xxx/yyy: Jacobus Job Johannes van Beek son of Margrieta Boelhouwer.

 

And the bibliography entry might be:

van Beek, Jacobus Job Johannes; ARC Query Result: www.arc.xxx/yyy. Query entered: 23 Nov 2008- Jacobus Job Johannes van Beek. ARC on-line web archives; www.arc.xxx.

 

This should give you a starting point for the general concept of "my way" of citing this database. Further details are left to the student's individual taste. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×