GENBOX-L Archives

Archiver > GENBOX > 2010-08 > 1281833821


From: "Cheri Casper" <>
Subject: Re: [GENBOX] Identifier Ideas...
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:57:01 -0700
References: <4C65BEE7.1030006@comcast.net> <AANLkTikruM-8dx++9yPHWYScayCX+Zb5uEKKefH-n_mL@mail.gmail.com> <007501cb3b74$ac1ce110$0456a330$@comcast.net> <AANLkTikiz-ktYDou_9HJfuWr+YKJp=4DMuJp3ou=Z_ce@mail.gmail.com> <000601cb3bd9$add153f0$0973fbd0$@com> <000001cb3be5$4a14ae50$de3e0af0$@comcast.net><4C66F83F.8070505@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <4C66F83F.8070505@comcast.net>


Rich - It seems redundant to me to create a new name for someone if they
already have that name tied to them. You could end up zillions of entries
for the same name.

Just my 2 cents worth.

CheriC

-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of Rich Marek
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 1:11 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [GENBOX] Identifier Ideas...

Hello to all,

Based on this discussion, I believe that "Names/Identifiers" is quite
confusing in Genbox. After printing out probably most of what I could
find in the Help files regarding them, I sat down and created more
questions than I found answers. If I may, I would like to back to the
abc's of the how the "Name/Identifier" system is structured and how it
can be of help to us.

If we create an individual, we also create an Identifier for them. We
are able to choose the Type of Identifier in the drop down list. What
starts my first puzzle is the list of types presented. The fact that
there is a Source Name type seems odd since every name came from a
source (I hope!). I am leaning toward just hiding the types I have not
used yet and tweaking what is on the list so that I just pick a name per
where I found it, be it a birth certificate or baptism record. I am
guessing that the Identifier Type would only be used for organizational
purposes.

Creating an Identifier in the Name in Source page is basically just
another method to do the same thing. What confuses me is the second
paragraph on the Help page that Denise quoted...

"It is important to record the names exactly as they appear, because
this information could be critical to resolving a research problem
later. Linking directly to an individual record without recording the
name variation will hide the assumptions you have made. This page makes
the mapping between source name text and individuals explicit."

What does this mean? I need this spelled out in simple terms!

For example, I have found that I have the best luck entering date if I
click on the Create New Individual icon on the toolbar and create a new
individual for every "new" Individual I find on a Source and then link
them to the Event as the 1,2,or 3 participant or as a Witness. I change
the Identifier Type and create a citation which seems to put it in the
appropriate box on the Citation View: Names Page.

As far as using the name/identifier in a narrative the can I just use
the [N] code without picking an Event to link it with?

For example I have a individual, Kazimierza Franciszczak, who was
recorded in the census as Frank Kazmis. All I want the sentence template
to basically generate is, "Kazimierza Franciszczak was recorded in the
1900 US census as Frank Kazmis in his own home at 123 Main St., Chicago,
Illinois."

I don't think I care to have Genbox refer to them by a name it chooses
after somone is married or some other event which changes their name. I
just want to use Sentence Templates to reference a name as found in the
Source. I think that I may still be creating an Identifier for each
Source even if that Identifier is exactly the same as a previously enter
one from another Source. (I think!)

Sorry to ramble on but, this gets to be like trying to describe a simple
little apple to someone - you wind up getting an entire paragraph....

Thanks for previous or future help. And by all means feel free to slap
me upside the head if needed!

Rich





On 8/14/2010 2:17 PM, Denise L. Moss-Fritch wrote:
> Thanks Cheri. Afraid I did not know of this connection. The Help states:
>
> Individual Boxes
> Use the Individual boxes (1, 2, 3) to link to the individual records that
> you believe correspond to the names mentioned in the source. If your data
> item involves only one or two individuals, leave the other individual
boxes
> on this page blank.
>
> Name in Source Boxes
> Use the Name in Source boxes to enter or select the name variations of the
> individuals that match the names in the source. If the individual you are
> mapping to does not have a name variation that matches the source, you can
> type a new name variation for the individual. It will be given an
identifier
> type of Source name.
>
>
> That last sentence in the Name of Source Boxes suggests (after your
> explanation), but does not really identify the connection to the
Identifies
> tab data with the Name tab data of the sources. Apparently that
relationship
> should be a bit clearer. Anyway, it is nice to know about this
relationship.
>
> Best,
>
> Denise L. Moss-Fritch
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:] On
> Behalf Of Cheri Casper
> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 10:54 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [GENBOX] Identifier Ideas...
>
> Paul - If I understand you correctly, you cannot remove a Defining Event
> from an Identifier. If that is the case, this is how you do it: select
all
> of the text in the Defining Event box then right click. The delete option
> is not active.
>
> I'm also not quite I completely understood this discussion. I *think* you
> were all using the Identifiers. Once an identifier is created and a
> citation to an event added, why aren't you using the Names tab of the
> citation to connect an Identifier with an Event. Or perhaps I
> misunderstood.
>
> CheriC
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:] On
> Behalf Of Paul Harris
> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 9:04 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [GENBOX] Identifier Ideas...
>
> Rich and Denise,
>
> Raising this issue has caused me to revisit same. Rich, I believe Bill's
> intent was to use an Identifier that is linked to an Event (Defining
Event),
> not an individual Source. On the Identifiers Tab you can link an
Identifier
> to ONLY ONE EVENT. However, that unique Identifier can have multiple
> Sources. When building a sentence for an event, the [N] code can be used
to
> generate the identifier that is linked to the event. Additionally,
sentences
> can be built with conditional phrases that will use the linked identifier
if
> one exists, or skip the phrase if it does not. I think there are two
> purposes to this feature, one of which is not yet implemented.
>
> As the feature currently exists, it can be used to show variations in
> spelling associated with specific events. Alternatively, I think Bill
> intended to develop that would automatically apply name CHANGES over time,
> IOW, once a woman married, further references in a narrative would use her
> married name. This could also be used for legal name changes or the
adoption
> of a nickname, etc. I guess you could accomplish this with the existing
> setup by linking the desired Identifier with EVERY event and using the [N]
> code throughout, but I believe this would be a rather kludgy workaround. I
> would rather wait for V4.
>
> In the process of reviewing this feature I ran some tests by linking
events
> to identifiers, only to discover that I cannot find a way to remove or
> change the link once established. Help!
>
> Paul
>
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Denise L. Moss-Fritch<
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Rich,
>>
>> Well, Bill has mentioned he would like to use the identifiers and the
>> associated "Defining event" for name variation in reports. I too am
>> identifying the variations of a name through time, for example Huyck,
>> Huyke, Huyk, and Hyke for one ancestor between the christening record
>> and the
> 1850
>> census. So you are not alone in recording variations to a name.
>>
>> I too am watching Bill's Twitter entries and am hoping to see a
>> version 4 (beta or otherwise).
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Denise L. Moss-Fritch
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [mailto:]
>> On Behalf Of Paul Harris
>> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 9:55 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: [GENBOX] Identifier Ideas...
>>
>> Hi Rich,
>>
>> Uh, wow. While you may have an argument for 'in the future,' even "I"
> think
>> this may be overkill. In a similar vein, I create a separate
>> Identifier
> for
>> each UNIQUE occurrence of a persons name and then add Source Citations
>> to that Identifier for each Source in which the name appeared EXACTLY
>> as it
> is
>> in the Identifier. That way, I can look at the Identifiers Tab and see
>> ALL of the Name Variations for the individual and by clicking on the
>> Citations Button I get a list of the Sources in which that name variation
> appeared.
> I
>> believe this is appropriate and adequate for any questions I might
>> like to pose about the sourcing of name variations. Nevertheless, you
>> raise an interesting subject for discussion.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Rich Marek<>
wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Since starting to use Genbox years ago, I have entered a "new"
>>> identifier for any occurrence of someone's name in any source I cite.
>>> If my grandfather was found on say, 20 sources I would record that
>>> one version of his name as found in a source 20 times even if the
>>> identifier was identical. Thus creating 20 identifiers that were
>>> "the
>> same".
>>> I was doing this because "in the future" Genbox would use the
>>> identifier as found in that source in narrative reports. My question
>>> would boil down to whether I am just chasing my tail by creating say
>>> 20 identifiers using "Paul Marek". one for each event. Or should I
>>> be creating one "Paul Marek" identifier linked to multiple events.
>>>
>>> BTW. I tend to agree with Paul Harris in that creating a large
>>> source list is just what this software is for. I cite every line on
>>> the census as a separate source linked to the higher source (the page).
>>>
>>> Details and minutia do not scare me. They just sooth my anal tendencies.
>>>
>>> Anyway, any thoughts either way would be appreciated. And I hope
>>> that Bill's Twitter entries are pointing towards a chance to see
>>> "version 4 beta"!
>>>
>>> Rich
>> > quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>> -------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
in the subject and the body of the message
>


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
in the subject and the body of the message

This thread: