GENBOX-L Archives

Archiver > GENBOX > 2004-02 > 1075677003


From: "Paul J. Harris" <>
Subject: RE: [GENBOX] Citation Wish
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 18:10:06 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CHEMKKAJHOKJPIEOPLKDIEFAEPAA.clcasper@sprynet.com>


Cheri,

To answer your question, no. I agree that the Sentence Preview is great for
checking the sentence and citation output, but not appropriate for ANALYZING
the data supporting the Assertion. In a string citation, it is very
cumbersome to seek out the annotations, remember them, remember which
sources they go with. Only if you designed a special report options file to
use, which would be cumbersome to switch out. Additionally, what Debbie and
I are talking about is an Analytical Tool to Evaluate contributing evidence
to arrive at a conclusion about Surety, WHICH YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT. <vbg>

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cheri Casper [mailto:]
> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 5:20 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: [GENBOX] Citation Wish
>
>
> Paul, Bill, Debbie, et al.,
>
> I can see the purpose of the proposal as being useful when you have
> suppressed citations or suppressed annotations. However, rather than
> opening up the citation window to check and compare between various facts,
> isn't it just easier to preview the sentence and see all of the citations
> with annotations, etc. all in one place? For the moment this serves my
> purposes.
>
> CheriC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul J. Harris [mailto:]
> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 11:59 AM
> To:
> Subject: RE: [GENBOX] Citation Wish
>
>
> Bill, Debbie, et al,
>
> Thank you for entertaining this discussion.
>
> Long ago, in a former life, I would have argued for an 'additional field'
> that was parallel to the CD linking the Citation and the Source.
> When I came
> to Genbox and found that I had THREE additional fields that performed in
> this way, I don't know how I could ever be greedy enough to ask
> for more. So
> my thought has always been to simply permit display of existing
> fields in a
> table format for analysis, but since YOU, Bill, suggest the possibility of
> another field, I believe that suggestion has merit. <g>
>
> Bill said:
> > I was wondering if whether this information should go into an additional
> > source citation field? It sounds like you want to store your
> > "justification"
> > or the "relevant fact" or some sort of personal reminder for what
> > information you gleaned from the source to support the current
> assertion.
> > Maybe this should be considered a research note attached to the
> citation?
> >
> > The Lead Text, Excerpts, Annotation, and Citation Detail are all
> > assumed to
> > be "output" text, that should be formatted and presented on
> > reports. What it
> > sounds like you're describing is a note that should by default remain
> > internal, used only for your own purposes in making surety
> assessments. It
> > could be a very short note, abbreviated like in your examples.
>
> I really think this is an excellent assessment of the situation. Assuming
> for the moment that you are considering an additional field, what is it
> called? I really don't like the term 'Relevant Fact' because of the word
> 'fact'. I WISH it was all FACT. <g> What I think it really is would be
> better described by a term like "Relevant Data", "Analysis Data",
> "Comparative Data", "Supporting Evidence", "Cited Evidence", "Relevant
> Evidence", "Contribution", or just "Data'. Oh, what's in a name?
>
> > Regarding seeing this information on the Assertion Page: would it be
> > acceptable to show the note/lead text/annotation/excerpt for
> the currently
> > selected citation only, similar to how notes are shown on the
> Identifiers
> > Page?
>
> No. In my opinion, this would not give us any more capability than we
> already have. I agree with Debbie, we must see the data from multiple
> sources at the same time for effective analysis.
>
> > Or should a column be added to the list for the selected text type?
>
> For the briefest of entries, this should be sufficient.
> Currently, using the
> Annotation field for this purpose, because it is output we are rather
> compelled to write full sentences. If we had the other field for
> 'in house'
> use, we could be much more brief.
>
> Example:
>
> Annotation: Indicates that she died last Saturday.
>
> Data: last Saturday
>
>
> > Or should the text for the selected text type appear in the list, on
> separate
> > lines interleaved between the citation lines?
>
> I personally like this idea, perhaps because I tend to create rather long
> source names that limit the available space in the row, and
> because it would
> permit more data to show. At one time (DOS days) I expressed a desire for
> something like this (can't believe I still had this):
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sources Supporting Birth Tag of Mary E. Ward (487)
>
> Src #AbbreviationCD
> Evidence
> ======================================================================
> 384U CenS-NY-SUF-1920-142-11AEntry for Mary E. Ward, line 15,
> family 125, dwelling 110
>
> age 26 in 1920 census, born in New York (estimate birth
> year to be 1893 since census was taken in January 1920)
>
> 421U-NY-KIN CivB-1893-09-17
>
> Born 9/17/1893 at 386 Prospect Ave., Brooklyn, New York
>
> 480Ward Family in Americap. 274
>
> Their only daughter was born at home in the fall of 1893.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm assuming that this is along the lines of which you were speaking.
>
> Digging out this old example illustrates a point that I had not considered
> previously. Though I tend to create very SPECIFIC sources these days, for
> those that use GENERAL sources, in order to effectively evaluate the data,
> they may NEED to see the CD or the Lead Text at the same time to
> know who's
> record the data came from. IOW, did that birth state come from the
> individual's census entry, or from one for their child?
>
> Here's a wild idea that just flew out of a body orifice: In a
> perfect world,
> you could see 'all' of the fields in question by generating the
> citation for
> each cited source in the assertion, perhaps with a toggle button like we
> currently have on the Formatting Tab. Toggling to from Source List to
> Analysis might give you something like this:
>
>
> -------------| (Toggle Button)
> Assertion Tab| |
>
> |-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Type: Event-Date |Source List/Analysis| |Surety Drop
> Down List|
> For: August R. Ruhlmann '--------------------'
> '---------------------'
> Context: Death 22 Mar 1972 Bayonne, Hudson County, New Jersey
> Item: Date: 22 March 1972
>
> ==================================================================
> ==========
> ===========
> SRC| S|Cred |Cited Evidence |Cited Source
> ==================================================================
> ==========
> ===========
> 642| /|Medium |[calc March 22] |"Died suddenly last night." August R.
> Ruhlmann
> | | | |obituary, Bayonne Times Features Now
> Appearing in the
> | | | |Jersey Journal, Bayonne, Hudson
> County, New
> Jersey,
> | | | |23 March 1972, page 22 Bay, column 2.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> -----------
> 855| /|Medium |Mar 1972 |August Ruhlmann, no. 138-07-3510, Social
> Security
> | | | |Death Index, Ancestry.com (Provo, Utah:
> MyFamily.com,
> | | | |Inc., May 2003). Died in Mar 1972.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> -----------
> 942| /|High |22 Mar 1972 |Entry for August Ruhlmann, Individual
> Records of
> | | | |Interment, Bay View/New York Bay
> Cemetery,
> Jersey
> | | | |City, Hudson County, New Jersey. Date of
> death hand
> | | | |written on typed file card.
> ==================================================================
> ==========
> ===========
>
> Would be nice if row height could adjust automatically to show
> text in Cited
> Source or Cited Evidence, whichever was longer, or be limited to
> user-defined limits like 3 lines of text. Also nice if column width still
> adjustable with the text reflowing to the adjustments. If possible, RTF
> formatting displayed in the Cited Source (italicized titles,
> etc.). For the
> icing, the Support Level and Credibility Columns would be drop-down lists
> that would permit changing the values from this tab. I agree with
> Debbie on
> this one. Sometimes, during analysis, your opinion of the source will
> change. <g>
>
> Okay, time to stop dreaming and return to the fruitful discussion.
>
> Bottom Line:
>
> Additional Field - nice, but not ABSOLUTELY necessary.
>
> Display - MUST be multiple at the same time to effect analysis.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==== GENBOX Mailing List ====
> To join this list, send an email to with the
> word "subscribe" as the subject line. Then email your messages to
> GENBOX-L@r
> ootsweb.com and they will appear on this list.
>
> ==============================
> Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
> Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more.
> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237
>
>
>
> ==== GENBOX Mailing List ====
> To join this list, send an email to
> with the word "subscribe" as the subject line. Then email your
> messages to and they will appear on this list.
>
> ==============================
> Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
> Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more.
> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237
>
>

This thread: