About the italics: if "Western Maryland Genealogy" is put in the right field in your software, the software will then save it with the right "tag", e.g. "title of journal". Then it's up to the software and the wishes of the user how to present the data. If you want to use the CMOS template, then the title will be shown accordingly. If someone else wants all titles of journals underlined in green, then he can tell his software to do that, and save his own stylesheet. But the "dry" data is still only
<journal><title>Western Maryland Genealogy</title></journal>

Sorry, GeneJ, I've another request:
Could you enter this example in your program (TMG?) and make screenshots? That would make clear which parts and styles are entered manually (and where) and what is done by the routines of the software (e.g., do you specify manually that it should be "m. 17 Dec 1807" instead of "married"?)
Are these examples just as they come out of a TMG report, or did you need to edit them? If edited, how does the original report look like?

Also, if it's possible could you export a GEDCOM with just these sources and persons and PFACTs? That would be _very_ interesting, too!

Sorry to ask so many things, but I believe this would help a lot. Thank you very much!

Hi Testuser,

(1) The first set of examples (1964 article) were added for the purpose of providing something "more basic" for comparative purposes here and in another test. (In my own file, there is a note in a memo field added to the master source that reads, as below:

For Nicholas Firestone and family, this early article is outdated by Russell's more recent work, "Firestone Family of Frederick County, Maryland," _Western Maryland Genealogy_ 9 (January 1993): 2-14 and (April 1993): 72-72.

The above field prints as part of the first referenced note. (It's not defined into the short reference note. ... and p.s no, I would probably not be interested in entering that information at the "assertion level.")

I suspect this is further interesting to those working on the linked references/source of the source/credit lines.

(2) Before there us discussion about specific logic for this part or that part or any of the citation elements, please see Mills, Evidence Explained, p. 10, for her description of citation purpose:

"We cannot judge the reliability of any information unless we know

• exactly where the information came from; and
• the strengths and weaknesses of that source.

...
We identify our sources ‹and their strengths and weaknesses‹ so we can reach the most reliable conclusions."

Those who are interested in developing the science, I would hope, take some time to think about all the components of a citation from especially that second criteria, all in the context of her final statement, above. Said another way, in the context of evidentiary value, there is no one part of a citation that necessarily more important than another. (Including that little "note" I put in the memo field of the master source, see 1, above.)

(3) Any number of scientific approaches have been taken to "strengths and weaknesses," especially as that related to the evidentiary value of the source in reaching the "most reliable" conclusion. QUAY, for example; other developers have tried mathematical approaches. BetterGEDCOM talks frequently about the science, but I'm always thrown by the comment "evidence doesn't change." So, I need to ask the question--how do these scientific approaches address that we learn? That information becomes outdated or changed with the passage of time or by some other notice.

I'll try to address more of your questions separately. --GJ

"I'm always thrown by the comment "evidence doesn't change." So, I need to ask the question--how do these scientific approaches address that we learn? That information becomes outdated or changed with the passage of time or by some other notice. "

OK, let me try and explain my view on this. Firstly, the management summary:

As we learn things, the evidence from a single source does not change but it's the _conclusions_ drawn from many sources that will change.

In more detail:
"Evidence" is, for me, the information contained in a single source, that is relevant to a specific problem.

Note that if you have a source but no defined problem, you can't possibly have any evidence but you do have INFORMATION. (If you don't like this statement, please consider the question of why the words "evidence" and "information" are different.)

So, how can the evidence from a _single_ source change? It can't - unless you get a clearer image or, like me, realise your interpretation of the text misread something, e.g. read a 3 for a 5 or read "Mary" for "Marg't".

Now suppose you have conflicting evidence taken from the 1870 and 1880 censuses and then discover another source for the same identifiable John Doe that resolves the conflict between the 1870 and 1880 censuses. The evidence from the 1870 census does not change. How can it, because the text in that census has not changed? The evidence from the 1880 census does not change, either. The _entire_ body of evidence for this John Doe clearly changes because you've got a new source with new evidence. The CONCLUSIONs drawn about John Doe change.

So, as we learn something more about this John Doe, the evidence from a single source does not, and cannot, change (subject to re-interpretation of the words). The entire body of evidence for JD, i.e. the entire body of evidence for JD changes because we have more sources. And the conclusions change for JD.

Phrases like "The evidence is that John Doe was born in St Louis MO in 1866" are not true if the phrase is a (justifiably correct) composite deduction from several sources, none of which give that exact information. The correct version is "The conclusion is that John Doe was born in St Louis MO in 1866". This _conclusion_ can change.

I hope this explains why, in my view of the world, and ignoring reinterpretation of writing, evidence (i.e. evidence from a single source) does not change.

There is, however, a way in which Tom W could argue my conclusion is wrong and evidence can change, so if you think like Tom, you may disagree. Consider a proof that uses 2 sources as input and comes to a conclusion (e.g. "John Doe was born in St Louis MO in 1866"). Suppose that conclusion is then used as INPUT to a 2nd proof (e.g. the proof that John's son is born at X in year Y). Then the input conclusion is actually ALSO evidence for the 2nd proof. If a 3rd source comes along and we revise the first proof, then the conclusion changes and since this conclusion has changed, then the evidence to the 2nd proof HAS changed. Tom and I could then have an unending argument about whether the evidence input to the 2nd proof really has changed or whether proof one is now a different proof and therefore whether the evidence to the 2nd proof is changed or whether it's replacement evidence. Or we could just decide, what the heck, it's Friday and it really doesn't matter.

So many conflicting new "rules." This would have been a big project, but it seems to becoming a controversial project.

The rules being espoused run contrary to how I practice genealogy--evidence doesn't change, evidence is not interpreted, conclusions should be separated totally from sources, to name a few.

It seems those working on E&C methodologies have different requirements from those who practice the Genealogical Proof Standard and follow Mills approach to evidence (not her style, but the introduction and first two chapters of _Evidence Explained_).

I suspect this also contributes to the differences in priorities.

My "evidence" changes, including that I learn and am able to better weigh the strengths and weaknesses of each source. My evidence is interpreted and I can't imagine separating conclusions from sources.

Folks have enough to worry about when they record sources and develop citations--"what" am I looking at/"what" is my source; what does it mean; is there a source of the source; who was the author or informant; is a better source available that might provide information about the same events?

Do you really want them to start questioning what they are allowed to interpret, learn about and record? I won't begin to assume the needs of those working on other forms of "evidence" But for me, and for the folks I work with, I don't see the reason for adding additional burdens in a model that would support researchers.


@ Adrian, in terms of evidence changing, I was thinking more along the lines of the items below:

(1) I have some censuses in my file that, with time, I realize every member of the household might as well have been reported born on Mars, which I
might not know it at the time I enter the census. Errant records exist.

(2) The entry about Henry B. Horton in _The Hortons of America …_ (1929) includes a quote from what seems a letter he wrote supplying information
to the author. The author, however, has Henry's lineage as "son of Stephen Horton and Hettie Vandyke (Stephen, Stephen, Daniel, David,
Joseph,Barnabas I.)" I won't even admit to how much time I spent on that little tale. This is my working file and certainly I would record that the source has badly mistaken Henry's father's line of descent.

(3) You observe a marriage record from New England, and later learn the 1785 record was entered out of date sequence. Certainly that out of date
sequence is information about the source that is material to the source--I should enter it whenever I learn it.

(4) Remember our discussion about the Hannah mix-up published in _Vermont Families in 1791_? When I learn the claims in the source are wrong, I
should make whatever entry to the source is necessary.

(5) You enter a record that cites another source, but then search and search, unable to find that referenced source. Or what if we find it and
determine the reference was improper?

(6) Finding a more comprehensive and timely record, as in my example of Russell's articles. The two sources are not equal; I would and should add a note to the 1964 article, reporting it has been superseded by the more recent article.

I don't want to interfere with important scientific discovery, but in my own experience, we have to mis-reading, mis-transcription/mis-typing, mis-translation, and we shouldn't assume our knowledge of the source and observance of strengths and weaknesses doesn't change as we learn more. (Even archivists now have "interactive" collections, because they, too, want to gather more information/learn more about their holdings.)

@Adrian,

I have no problem with anything you have said. Thank you.

I also don't see any difference between E&C, the research process, and GPS -- all say basically the same thing.

GeneJ's concern over rules leaves me confused as does many things she says -- there were no strict rules in anything you said. It was all common sense and all in agreement with E&C and GPS.

Gene
"It seems those working on E&C methodologies have different requirements from those who practice the Genealogical Proof Standard and follow Mills approach to evidence"

Sorry but this is nothing to do with E&C or whatever, it's simply me following the definitions!

To repeat - "Evidence" is, for me, the information contained in a single source, that is relevant to a specific problem.

That means it's not a conclusion, it's not an interpretation, it's just the facts (as Louis said) extracted from the text of the source. That's the key - for many / most sources, the evidence is just an extract of the text, with some means of highlighting.

"I can't imagine separating conclusions from sources." But you do separate them as much as I advocate, I'm sure. I'm quite sure you don't add your comments and interpretations to the text extracted from the source leaving us uncertain where (say) a will's bequests end and where Gene's comments begin. All my conclusions (the way I work) appear in Notes that are part of the Source-Record (or linked to it) but are clearly NOT part of the text of the source. That's quite sufficient separation in my software.

"Do you really want them to start questioning what they are allowed to interpret, learn about and record?" No - anyone should be free to think anything. But don't corrupt the text of the source. That's what I ask.

Re your items:
1. Not sure what you're getting at here. The text on the census forms does not change, so the evidence from those forms does not change.

2. "certainly I would record that the source has badly mistaken Henry's father's line of descent." Of course you should. But you wouldn't - I hope - go back and alter the text of the letter to the correct descent, would you? What changes is not the evidence in that letter - it's the conclusion about whether or not to trust it. Add a note - presumably in your citation data? That's fine, you've not altered the evidence, you've just added a conclusion.

3. "out of date sequence is information about the source that is material to the source--I should enter it whenever I learn it."
Yes, of course you should. That's evidence. What's the problem?

4. "When I learn the claims in the source are wrong, I should make whatever entry to the source is necessary" Again I bet you do NOT alter the text of the source. I bet you add a note somewhere to say "No, oh no! See XXXX" That's not altering the evidence - that's altering the conclusion about what to do with the evidence.

5. "You enter a record that cites another source, ... unable to find that referenced source. Or what if ... the reference was improper?" No problem - you add a note saying your conclusion is that this is wrong, you do NOT take it on yourself to alter the text of the source, do you?

6. "I would and should add a note to the 1964 article" Absolutely - a note that is clearly separate from the text and records your conclusions based on the fact that you found another source and on analysis, it's better. That's conclusions.

7. "mis-reading, mis-transcription / mis-typing, mis-translation," I reckon that this is when evidence DOES change.

8. "we shouldn't assume our knowledge of the source and observance of strengths and weaknesses doesn't change" Of course it will - but the text does not change - what changes is our conclusions about the data.

Gene - if we can't agree the difference between evidence and conclusions, as in "the evidence from a single source" and conclusions drawn from it AND several others, then we are in serious trouble. I can only repeat - these are not my definitions.

Hi Adrian,

Thank you.

So, when some of us say evidence that doesn't change, we are referring to "abstracted" and "extracted" information. Where as for me, when I weigh the evidence, I'm considering the abstractions/extractions and all the other information about the source that might be relevant.

There are two witnesses to a hit and run, and both supply testimony--one account says the car was blue and the other says the car was green. If I learn the man who testified the car was blue is colorblind, that is material to how I "weigh" the evidence, even though his testimony is what it is.

"Where as for me, when I weigh the evidence, I'm considering the abstractions/extractions and all the other information about the source that might be relevant."
Everyone should do that, including those who say "evidence does not change".

"If I learn the man who testified the car was blue is colorblind, that is material to how I "weigh" the evidence, even though his testimony is what it is"
Yes, absolutely. All we are saying is that the testimony does not change (unless someone wants to be hauled up for perverting the course of justice.) There is, later on, a new piece of evidence (that about colour blindness). That leads you to review the previous conclusion, so you come to a different conclusion.

At no time in that last example does any of the evidence from a SINGLE SOURCE change. There are new pieces of evidence, of course there are, new ways of looking at a piece of evidence and new conclusions. The phrase "Evidence does not change" means "Evidence from a single source does not change" - aside we know from discovered errors in transcribing, etc. Unfortunately there isn't a plural for evidence, otherwise I'd say:
"Conclusions change; evidences do change; a single evidence doesn't".

Perhaps better English is:
"Conclusions change; the entire body of evidence changes; a single piece of evidence from a single source does not change - discovery of errors excepted."

Hi Adrian,

Yup, yup, yup ... with one twist. In my working file, I don't wait until I make a conclusion to comment "about the source." I comment or notate as I go along. (We discussed this during our work on the "research process.")

I have one manuscript representing oral history penned in the 1880s. The scribe included details of who was providing the information to him. The information spans over 100 years, from say the 1760s. A number of events and details are discussed—specifics of where in a town my ancestor’s family had settled, comments about his second captivity during the revolution, etc. There are also phrase like, “mother [or father] always …” At the time I obtained the manuscript, I had already identified many of those mentioned and the informant. So, for example, I knew my ancestor had died 1842, and that the informant was his daughter, born 1811. She was a child born to his second marriage. This knowledge may be external to the four corners of the document, but it helps to distinguish between primary and secondary information and the timeliness of the record. This information “about the source” puts all of the abstracts and extracts in a context. In the source_record, I add the informant’s life-span and a note that she was the daughter of XXX and XXX; I might add their life-spans. Ditto, the identity of the scribe and his relationship to the informant. In this case, these disclosures are part of the full reference notes in my working file—meaning they relate to every assertion that is associated with that master source.

Thank you for listening and having this discussion. As all relates to "source and citations," this is likely just a matter of keeping in mind there are different user requirements--different definitions evidence and different ways of handling same.

TYTY. --GJ

Gene - re "I don't wait until I make a conclusion to comment "about the source." I comment or notate as I go along."

That's a good point. If you imagine a big write-up on a research process leading to a conclusion or two, these annotations are valuable pointers but not conclusions to the main research process. Or at least, they need not be, not to start with, because we could be just commenting as we add the data without even knowing in detail what research process we will do with this data. So they're not conclusions from that main research process, but nor are they evidence from the recently captured sources because they're not extracts / summaries of them. Something to bear in mind.......

Hi Adrian,

"... these annotations are valuable pointers but not conclusions to the main research process. Or at least, they need not be, not to start with, because we could be just commenting as we add the data without even knowing in detail what research process we will do with this data. So they're not conclusions from that main research process, but nor are they evidence from the recently captured sources because they're not extracts / summaries of them."

We are on the verge of a love fest.

Separate from the challenge presented in the "C from E" case, "Birth but once ...," believe this discussion explains why I say my "evidence" is stored in my reference notes/citations. Ala, I see "evidence" as the extract connected to what others see as the source. For example, if that abstract or extract is a quote by the author, I likely entered that author's name/identity in the source_record. When we think about dates, there can be an abstracted date in some "evidence record" and then also the the date the extract was created. (Ala, that oral history above). If the work has been published or available on line, it tends to have been more widely distributed/accessed than privately held materials--the more eyes that have seen it, the more likely others have opined/critiqued. As I recall, Tony observes that Wikipedia's citation policies include comments about "reliable sources."

Love fest over, bear back to work. --GJ

There seems to be yet another issue in here in the 2'nd (1993) case. Two issues of the journal are cited, January and April - in a multi level model that would have two links upward if you have an entry for each issue - or is that a not so smart way to structure the levels (maybe not a level for each issue)?

Then, there are also two microfilms cited in the first ref.

Seems to me that it will be impossible to output this using a template with fields for each bit and piece unless the template is able to reference several MSTs, and you will need to construct a template for each ref note. It will be even more complicated (in practice impossible) if you expect a program to generate it based only on the CEs present.

If you were to attempt to model this with relations between master sources, and ref notes and master sources, it seems we have a third type of relation "cites" in addition to "contained in" and "is a republication/transcript etc. of". Note that Dublin Core has a "references" relation for e.g. citations, see http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/index.shtml#terms-references

You would have to have rules/templates that would extract the relevant CEs from each of the (in this case) cited sources, and the user would probably have to use a specially designed editor to puzzle together such a data structure in a user friendly way - I have trouble seeing a master source type that would provide a set of CEs that would produce these reference notes.

I believe GeneJ already had a powerful solution here:
http://bettergedcom.wikispaces.com/message/view/Sources+and+Citations/48539294

The solution may involve allowing either referenced (citing XXsometextXX) or linked (citing @S51 ...) entries into that field.

I imagine that allowing these kinds of links inside of Notes (and other places?) may be very useful for more complex citations and footnotes.
The same syntax could be used in the stylesheets or templates for building reports.

"Two issues of the journal"
Maybe the source-type is multi-part journal...

Journal would get us most things in this bibliography, (I'm showing it in marked up form):
<author> Russell, George Ely, CG, FASG, FNGS. </author>
<title>“Firestone Family of Frederick County, Maryland.” </title><publisher>Western Maryland Genealogy </publisher>
<what is this?>9 </what is this?><published>(January 1993): </published>
<pages>2-14</pages>

Then allowing for multiple versions of the last tag pair:
<author> Russell, George Ely, CG, FASG, FNGS. </author>
<title>“Firestone Family of Frederick County, Maryland.” </title><publisher>Western Maryland Genealogy </publisher>
<what is this?>9 </what is this?><published occ=1>(January 1993): </published>
<pages occ=1>2-14</pages>
<published occ=2>(April 1993) </published>
<pages occ=2>62-72</pages>

Yes, of course that's the easy one! This does destroy the easy access to the 2 journal issues that would come if they were separately recorded but would it matter? Possibly yes if you wanted independent access to (say) the ISSN not held against the article but against the issue.

"two microfilms cited in the first ref." Does this matter? The source that is being cited is "Parish Registers for Evangelical Church for Berg, 1712-1794" which happens to be published over two microfilms, so I'd suggest it's one publication entry that mentions 2 films. Again, this will matter if you envisage using the individual films numbers for some purpose - e.g. a direct link into the LDS catalogue.

"a third type of relation "cites"
I guess I'd always thought that....

A more important topic though for "cites" is whether or not we should be creating source-records for the cited sources. It goes a bit against the grain, having got used to the idea of sources pointing to sources, but Gene pointed out the issues created when the source-of-the-source citation is plain wrong or of rubbish format or .... In such cases, maybe the "respect the source" mantra tells us we should simply be copying the source-of-the-source citation and adding it as a post-source-citation note (i.e. post-the-1st-source). Of course, I've totally ignored the bit "particularly 63, entry for Mathias^2 Firestone, "born at Thal 5 April 1744,"".... Which may also be a note.

I'm conscious I'm turning a lot of stuff into notes, which destroys the power of analysis - but I'd like to see how Gene would represent those in her software.... Or am I giving in too early to my own challenge?

I'll try and start picking apart the second example.

Bibliography/Source List Entry:
Russell, George Ely, CG, FASG, FNGS. “Firestone Family of Frederick County, Maryland.” Western Maryland Genealogy 9 (January 1993): 2-14 and (April 1993): 62-72.

I think this is all going to be at the Source Record.

<source id=S1 type="Journal"> 
  <title>Western Maryland Genealogy</title>
  <year>9</year> //is that what the "9" means?
  //other things if needed (Publisher...)
</source>
 
<source id=S2 type="Article"> 
  <title>Firestone Family of Frederick County, Maryland</title>
  <author>Russell, George Ely, CG, FASG, FNGS</author> 
  <sourceRef refID=S1>
    // here follows my attempt at a where-within-source
      <issue>January 1993
      <page>2-14</page>
    </issue>
     <issue>April 1993
        <page>62-72</page>
     </issue>
  </sourceRef> 
</source>

I'm assuming it's the same article that appeared twice? Or is it 2 parts of one article? Then maybe there should be a <part> somewhere?
I'm not sure this is a good representation, haven't thought it through completely. I could imagine having everything in one Source (if I don't have anything else from that journal) or two more sources (for both issues).

I haven't time to continue with the Reference Notes right now, but I'll try to come back later.

I will not be surprised if we meet Dublin Core further down the road. I am absolutely not an expert on DCMI, but here is what I guess a skeleton model based on DCMI would look like (I have not found their repository):



If you had a "filter" or template (relation type specific) that would pick out the relevant Citation Elements from the related Master Sources, and had a mechanism (a template) that would concatenate the info in a certain order, you could get something like Gene's example ref note 1 i case 2 on this page. Maybe you need something like that if you are into multilevel sources anyway.

I am in brainstorming mode ...

(I will read Ardrian's posting above now.)

Hi TestUser ...

Can you figure out a way to get the italics notations for Western Maryland?

I know there are many on the wiki who don't bother to present published titles in italics (ditto, websites), but those who do will not recognize the items in the groups below as same material (I have to use the underscore here to signify italics).

"Western Maryland Genealogy"
Western Maryland Genealogy
_Western Maryland Genealogy_

"Smitherson Family History"
Smitherson Family History
_Smitherson Family History_

See my figure abowe.

Assume that we have relations IsPartOf, IsTranscriptionOf, IsImageOf, Cites/References, etc. – rather specific relations to handle specific requirements.

Assume that for each type of a Master Source Type (MST) that can be "pointed to" (Sx), for each relation type, you can define a subset of the CEs for that MST, and formatting, that will be part of a citation (e.g. reference note) pointing to Sx. Allow "source detail" (where in source, summaries etc.) to be added to that as if the subset og CEs were an MST. Call the result a sub citation.

Create a "super template" that may contain text … sub-citation1(relation type, Sx1, source detail) … text … sub-citation2(relation-type, Sx2, source detail) …text.

One can probably discuss if the "source detail" stuff should be "text" in the super template. And you also may have complications with chained relations.

The functionality of a sub-citation would not only be useful in this context (Gene's example citations) , but could also be a tool to keep the number of sources down, that would otherwise sky rocket if you try to create MSTs for all possible initial (original) MSTs and chains of various relations.

I am sure there is complicating factors, but that remains to be seen….

---

Gene,

The Italics does not fit in testuser's example, it contains only data, the italics <i> would go in a template.

Second last paragraph: "number of sources down", should be number of Master Source Types down"

@ Geir, re italics,

I gathered that from earlier discussions. The point I'm making is that until you have that language developed, I see this bibliographic entry as below:

Bibliography/Source List Entry:

Russell, George Ely, CG, FASG, FNGS
“Firestone Family of Frederick County, Maryland”
Western Maryland Genealogy
9
(January 1993)
2-14
(April 1993)
62-72

Which could just as easily be:
Russell, George Ely, CG, FASG, FNGS
9
Western Maryland Genealogy
62-72
2-14
(January 1993)
(April 1993)
“Firestone Family of Frederick County, Maryland”

GeneJ, I don't understand your last post. Maybe you could show me what all the elements in your citation are. I'm really not fluent in Citationese ;-)

Here are my guesses:
First item
Russell, George Ely = author of article
CG, FASG, FNGS = titles? memberships? of author
Firestone Family of Frederick County, Maryland = title of article
Western Maryland Genealogy = title of journal
9 = no idea, volume?
January 1993 = an issue of the journal
2-14 = pages of that issue
April 1993 = another issue
62-72 = pages

Second item
Parish Registers for Evangelical Church for Berg, 1712-1794 = title of book/film
film no. 729846 (baptisms) = reference no. and content
film no. 729848 (marriages and burials) = reference no. and content
LDS Family History Library, Salt Lake City, Utah = repository (or publisher?)

Third item
Columbiana County, Ohio, Marriage Records, 1804-1835 = title of book/collection
E. Liverpool, Ohio = place published
Griscom DAR Chapter = publisher?
1938 = date published

Fourth item
Die Leiden der Evangelischen in der Graffschaftt Saanverden (Kanton Saar-Union und Drutingen im Elsass) Reformation und Gegenreformation 1557-1700 = title of book
nach dem Quellen erzahlt von Gustav Matthis, Pfarrer zu Eyweiler = subtitle of book / author
Strassburg = place published
1800 = date published
p. 256 = page
Appendix of families from the records of churches in the locality = name of chapter



Also, I think it would be helpful to know the PFACT(s) for which you want to document the source. Then we could see which parts of the citation would go where more easily.

My interpretations: You want to document
PFACT 1
Mathias^2 Firestone = name of person
"born at Thal 5 April 1744" = birth date and place

PFACT 2
Anna 'Mary' Firestone =name of person
m. 17 Dec 1807, Richard Karl/Carle = marriage date and partner

PFACT 3
Feuerstein = family name
Der Handel [...] = explanation of origin, transcript in the article
The trade [...] = translation (in the article or by you?)
He is writing chiefly [...] = further note by author