GENBOX-L ArchivesArchiver > GENBOX > 2003-09 > 1063519940
From: Kathy Lenerz <>
Subject: Re: [GENBOX] Higher and Lower Sources
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 02:12:33 -0400
Well, yes, but this leads directly back to my original post:
>The alternative would be to just use the newspaper, baptismal register,
>or vital record register as a higher-level source, entering all
>extracts consecutively on the same evidence page. In order to keep
all >these extracts straight, however, this method would require
labeling >them all, e.g., date and page no. Since the date and page
number are >already entered in the citation record, this is double entry
of the >same information. Plus, I think that it would be cumbersome to
>scroll through hundreds of entries to find what one wants.
Cheri Casper wrote:
> Kathy - While you can't add to the Evidence field with the Citation window
> open, you can have the Source open at the same time and add the Evidence
> there. When you click back on the Citation window, what you just added to
> the Source should now be available for use and marking in the Evidence area.
> You can keep both windows open as you work adding text here, using it there.
> The ability to have both windows open is wonderful as well as the ability to
> have multiple instances of the *same* window open. Changes made one place
> are also reflected in the other.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kathy Lenerz [mailto:]
> Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 9:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [GENBOX] Higher and Lower Sources
> Didn't Bill say a short while back that the Lead Text area wasn't
> intended for that use? Perhaps that's why when I tried what you
> suggested, it produced the same results that Beth is trying to deal
> with. When I put the verbatim text in the Lead Text for more than one
> event, it printed out multiple times. I think ibids only take the rest
> of the footnote into account. I would like to reserve annotations for
> actual annotations, i.e., notes about the text, conflicting data, and
> how I reached my conclusions. If I put both the verbatim text and the
> annotation in the Annotation field, and if I want separate annotations
> for the different events using the same citation, the verbatim text will
> always print out. . . I don't seem to be able to figure out how to have
> it all. It would all be simple if there were an Evidence box in the
> citation window.
> Cheri Casper wrote:
>>Kathy - What you are trying to accomplish does not require separate
>>Nor are you bound to using the Evidence area since you don't think that
>>work for you. Therefore, I would suggest that you use either the Lead
>>field or the Annotation field and put in the exact info that you want
>>Just make one higher source for your newspaper and design it so that you
>>use the CD field for the date and page number. Then put the verbatim text
>>in the Annotation or Lead Text field.
>>However, you can use either of the two other options. All three -- lead
>>text, evidence, annotations -- can be used conjunctively. This, combined
>>with your actual CD, gives you what amounts to 4 CD fields. They are just
>>labelled differently in this program. You might want to read the Help
>>Once you get the hang of this, you will find it vastly superior to having
>>remember which CD you have allocated to which iota of data. Sourcing is
>>of the reasons this satisfied GB user made the switch.
>>From: Kathy Lenerz [mailto:]
>>Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 7:39 PM
>>Subject: Re: [GENBOX] Higher and Lower Sources
>>I have been reading this thread with interest. Conceptually, using
>>multi-level sourcing seems to make sense. Practically, I have a harder
>>time with it. My concern is that it seems to require a lot more data
>>Here is my situation: I have a number of higher level sources from which
>>I extract information: church record books, vital records entered in
>>registers, newspaper articles and tidbits. What I would really like to
>>do with these is have one higher level source and enter the citation AND
>>text in the citation box/window. However, there is no place to enter
>>text there. Therefore, I have to choose whether to make each baptismal
>>entry or newspaper tidbit a separate source or whether to create a
>>superordinate source, with these as lower level documents. To give you
>>an idea of the magnitude of these "documents," here are a few examples:
>>Die vigesima quarta xbris 2a. matin natus et eadem renatus est Michael
>>filius legitimus Adami Lenert custodis ovium et Annae Mariae Scheer
>>conjugum ex Britten. Levantibus Michaele Schuligen et Helena Brausch
>>adolescenta, ambobus ex Britten.
>>Mr. John Baltes is having a large barn built this fall. Master
>>carpenter John Schwarz is doing the work.
>>Mrs. John Lenertz is still on the sick list.
>>I have dozens of baptismal entries from the same register and hundreds
>>of newspaper items from the same newspaper.
>>It would make conceptual sense to decide that a baptismal entry,
>>marriage entry, or newspaper piece is a lower level "document" in a
>>higher level source, and use multi-level sourcing. Practically,
>>however, this requires setting up a new (lower level) source for each
>>9-word item from a newspaper, and coming up with a name for each such
>>sentence from the gossip column. (As an aside, this was a GREAT place
>>to obtain information!)
>>The alternative would be to just use the newspaper, baptismal register,
>>or vital record register as a higher-level source, entering all extracts
>>consecutively on the same evidence page. In order to keep all these
>>extracts straight, however, this method would require labeling them all,
>>e.g., date and page no. Since the date and page number are already
>>entered in the citation record, this is double entry of the same
>>information. Plus, I think that it would be cumbersome to have to
>>scroll through hundreds of entries to find what one wants.
>>Both of these methods seem like a lot more work than what I am used to
>>in the "other" program-- enter both the citation detail and extract on
>>the citation entry screen.
>>As I try out this program, this seems like one major stumbling block to
>>me. Any thoughts on this situation or my thinking here would be