Elizabeth, Thank you for your comments, which are much appreciated. Initially, may I make it clear that I am well aware of the need for accurate sourcing, or at least as accurately as possible and I am also aware that there is, at least as yet, no such thing as absolute proof. I should add that I spent most of my working life in the sciences, chemistry/physics and computer programming to a lesser extent. Given the necessary mathematical background, during which I was educated in the days of Euclidean Geometry, I guess I am reasonably familiar with the presentation of proof. I expect you are aware that in GB there is no standardised method of sourcing, and no doubt we could debate for a long time as to whether this is a good or bad thing, but I have always been clear on three things: i) The recording of sources must be clear. ii) They must be reproducible ie. others must be able to find them. iii) They must lead to the conclusions derived. Taking the points which you raise: 1) I do not disagree with what you say here, although one day I would love to debate with you the extent to which the detail of standardisation is necessary. Maybe we'll bump into each other sometime - a Legacy Cruise, hmmm. 2) Agreed 3) I would not dream of making such a proposition, especially since computers can only tell the difference between a one and a zero! I know I will never write a book, and my publishing interests are of the website variey and I have, in my own view, always provided clear sources; Numerous people have contacted me after tracing the data through the information which I published - so I know it works for some ;-). I am sure that some of the problems of sourcing are due to differing interpretations of the definition of a Source and an Event. We see it in the posts to this group. Take censuses for example, I regard them as a Source for information relating to individuals eg their name, age, residence at that time, place of birth, occupation etc., whereas others consider them to be Events. Obviously the method sourcing will be quite different. In the former case the census will source the detail in the census, and be linked to residence events etc., whilst in the latter presumably the government will source the census (not doing this way I haven't thought it through in any detail). These differences do, however mean that there are different requirements in detail (I am not referring to the Legacy Source Detail here) and these are manifested, at least in part, by the needs of splitters and lumpers, of which I am but one. For these reasons it is doubtful if there is a wholly satisfactory and universal way of sourcing. Even in the sciences there is a multitude of ways of presenting a conclusion. Finally, I concur with your comments regarding the software developers at Legacy and elsewhere. At the end of the day it is the users who test their efforts to destruction, as anybody who has done any programming will know. One of the major difficulties is that most(?) of the testers probably have had some hands-on experience of developing programs of some sort, and consequently have a sort of "set way of thinking" which can easily lead to something obvious being missed! Then the inevitable "Why was this never picked up?".
Ron Ferguson _____________________________________________________________________ *New Tutorial* Publish your Web Pages - Blogs http://www.fergys.co.uk View the Grimshaw Family Tree at: http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/ For The Fergusons of N.W. England See: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/ _____________________________________________________________________ > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com > Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Master Source Subsequent Citation Issue > Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 17:19:00 -0600 > >>We could see this coming, and it is why I would imagine most are like me, > and extremely selective as to which Source Writer templates are used. Mrs > Mills has a lot to answer for!! > > > Beyond a doubt, I do, Mr. Ferguson. However, I doubt that this will be > one of those issues for which I will one day make atonement. > > Standard practices for citing subsequent sources existed long before > _Evidence Explained._ I take no credit for inventing them--only for the > labor of cataloging them in a genealogical context. Indeed, those standards > existed long before the emergence of the great divide between lumpers and > splitters. > > The crux of the problem is this: Every software program has its peculiarly > distinctive architecture. Until common standards are followed by all of > them, we wrestle with a common problem: What works for one program doesn't > necessarily work for another. Beyond that, until that glorious day comes > when peace, harmony, and total synchronization exists, we have a few other > realities to live with: > > 1. Standards for writing and documentation *do* exist for logical reasons, > although it would be illogical to assume that everyone will automatically > perceive all those reasons. Most of us learn their value the hard > way--whether that be through time-consuming study or costly mistakes. > > 2. Computers and software are tools to help us perform our tasks--whatever > those tasks may be--according to the standards that exist for each task. > > 3. If we believe that standards should change to fit every piece of > software, then we're arguing for a morass in which there are no standards at > all. > > > Some studies have shown that most genealogists today have been "doing > genealogy" for less than a dozen years. Even so, there are many who well > remember the state of affairs in the early-to-mid 80s, when genealogical > software allowed us no way to cite sources at all--no way, no place, no how. > When we begged the designers for some way to do this, they, too, had trouble > understanding those "standards for writing and documentation" we spoke of. > Many a time, at one conference or another, they smiled at me so tolerantly > before they tsked: "Now, Elizabeth. Nobody cares about documentation--nobody > but a few 'professionals' like you." (They even had this cute little way of > saying "professionals" that made it sound like a 13-letter dirty > word--apparently oblivious to the fact that even genealogists who help > others with their research have private lives in which they research their > own families.) > > Today, we are blessed that brilliant developers such as Geoff, and his > counterparts at several other major genealogical software firms, not only > realize why standards for research and documentation exist, but also are > putting immense effort into figuring out how to make their programs produce > those standards. Like all of us, their efforts are still a work in progress. > Candid discussions in forums such as this, in which users share their > experiences in using those tools, helps them greatly. Debating the > intricacies of citation, the differences between sources, the ways both > effect our analysis of evidence and the reliability of our data--these, too, > help us toward our common goal: To find our forebears, separate them from > other same name individuals, reconstruct their lives, and assemble them into > families whose collective experiences ultimately make ourselves and our > world more understandable. > > Elizabeth > --------------------------------- > Elizabeth Shown Mills > (Whose ancestors have led her on a merry chase through every state east of > the Mississippi, half of those to the west, and virtually every country west > of Russia) > _________________________________________________________________ Get Windows Live Messenger on your Mobile http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/msnnkmgl0010000001ukm/direct/01/ *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
