APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2004-02 > 1076772472


From: "Jerry Fitzpatrick" <>
Subject: RE: [APG] Repositories, Sources, and Citations
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:29:48 -0600
In-Reply-To: <128.3b88b563.2d5ef988@aol.com>


My thanks to all those who have responded to my inquiry.

I don't really have a quarrel with Elizabeth. However, her statement "In
this analogy, the repository would be the Internet or the World Wide
Web." really threw me for a loop. (Darn, if only she had time for a
protracted debate. <g>).

Elizabeth's statement seems reasonable, except for the fact that
Internet doesn't store anything at all. It's simply a network that
connects computers together. The actual data is stored on computers that
are owned and operated by some person or group, just as a library
maintains its building and resources. I drive Interstate 10 to the
Clayton Library, but Interstate 10 wouldn't be called a repository.

I like Donn's definition (below), but it implies that Ancestry.com
*would* be a repository because its computers hold and store sources
(albeit electronic ones). A person doesn't open a physical door to
enter, but they do enter the electronic premises of Ancestry when they
go to www.ancestry.com.

If I write a biography of my deceased grandparents based on my personal
recollections, then presumably that document is a source. If the
document remains in my possession then I'm effectively a repository.
After all, researchers would have to contact me to read or copy the
document. Unfortunately, it seems counterintuitive for an individual to
be called a repository, doesn't it?

Tombstones are a common source of genealogical information. I have to
record the cemetery name and location for other researchers to see the
tombstones for themselves. Since the cemetery stores source data, isn't
it also a repository? But doesn't that sound weird?

Maybe it's just me, but I find the term "repository" misleading. As I
understand it, the primary purpose of identifying a repository is to
permit someone to find a source cited in a report. The source might be
in the possession of a company, a church, a library, an Internet
service, an individual, etc.

In reality, the "repository" information is a way to identify who has
custody of the source. It seems to me that using the term "custodian"
instead of the term "repository" would cause less confusion. Any person
or group can be a custodian of data, regardless of where that data
originated.

Am I out in left field here? Is there some other purpose or meaning of
"repository" that I'm unaware of?

---
Jerry Fitzpatrick
Software Renovation Corporation

http://www.SoftwareRenovation.com


-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 10:10 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: [APG] Repositories, Sources, and Citations

Hi Jerry

You wrote
>
> Maybe I'm being slow on the up-take, but this distinction between
source
> and repository seems pretty arbitrary.

I've always seen a clear distinction, which has significance in
evaluating
evidence:

Repositories hold, store and retrieve sources.

Sources create, record, and modify information.

A person, institution or physical object may fill either role or both
simultaneously in relation to collectons of information, but for any
individual item
in the collection, the distinction is significant.

Donn Devine, CG, CGI
Wilmington DE

CG, Certified Genealogist, CGI, and Certified Genealogical Instructor
are
service marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under
license
by board certificants after periodic evaluation, and the board name is
registered in the US Patent & Trademark Office.
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus Scanner]


This thread: