APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2004-02 > 1076719945


From: "Helen Leary" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Repositories, Sources, and Citations
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 19:52:25 -0500
References: <001201c3f27a$12145480$dc1afea9@K9>


Does this help? "If you have to open a door, it's a repository; if you don't
it's a source. If you have to move from one place in the source to another
(for example: from title page to data page; or from home page to data page
to item page), each place is part of the source's name." This won't cover
all instances, but in the present discussion, it should serve as a rule of
thumb.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Fitzpatrick" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 4:40 PM
Subject: RE: [APG] Repositories, Sources, and Citations


> Maybe I'm being slow on the up-take, but this distinction between source
> and repository seems pretty arbitrary.
>
> A library is normally considered a repository, yet it has books written
> by many authors. A book can also have many authors. If multiple authors
> is the distinction, then wouldn't such a book be considered a
> repository?
>
> The Clayton Library in Houston contains numerous genealogical sources.
> It is the keeper of that information, regardless of who created or
> published the information originally. Ancestry is also a keeper of
> information created/published by others. Like the library, the
> information is physically kept and maintained by Ancestry regardless of
> the media (printed vs electronic). If Clayton Library is a repository,
> then why isn't Ancestry? If Ancestry publishes a "refined SSDI" then I
> would expect them to be both the source and the repository for this
> specific case.
>
> ---
> Jerry Fitzpatrick
> Software Renovation Corporation
>
> http://www.SoftwareRenovation.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mills [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 9:53 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [APG] Repositories, Sources, and Citations
>
> Beth asked:
> <When creating a citation for online data from Ancestry, . . . I do not
> understand why I should use Ancestry as the source, for example, for the
> marriage databases. In this example, Ancestry would be only the
> repository
> and the source would be the information provided by Ancestry for the
> database. Could someone please clarify the reasoning for listing
> Ancestry as
> the source and repository for the above or do you list Ancestry only as
> the
> repository?>
>
> Beth, I would not consider Ancestry a repository. A website such as
> Ancestry
> is better likened to a book that has chapters by different authors or a
> journal that has articles by different authors.
>
> An analogous hierarchy for online material might be this:
> Author: Original creator of that database
> Article/Chapter title: Database name (in quote marks)
> Book/journal: Website name (italicized)
> Publisher: MyFamily.com
> Publication Place <URL>
> Publication Date: Whatever creation date is given for the db (in absence
> of
> one, we specify the date we accessed it)
>
> In this analogy, the repository would be the Internet or the World Wide
> Web.
> But, just as a citation for books does not normally cite a repository,
> there's rarely a need to cite "Internet" or "World Wide Web." That is
> generally understood from the URL.
>
> It's also helpful to bear in mind that while many databases at megasites
> such Ancestry originated elsewhere, they may have been "refined" by
> Ancestry
> and the version at that site may not be the same as a version at another
> site. (The government-issued SSDI is a well-known example of this.)
>
> Elizabeth
>
> ======
> Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
> Author, *Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian*
> Editor/Author, *Professional Genealogy: A Manual for Researchers,
> Writers,
> Editors, Lecturers, and Librarians*
>


This thread: