Re: 1939 National Register


Adrian Bruce
 

On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 at 12:10, John James <gladtobegrey@...> wrote:
...
"tna_rg101..." would be better, because that would be correct. "tna_R39..." is just plain wrong.
...
Speaking with my (former) IT hat on... "tna_R39..." is not a TNA
reference, nor is it ever alleged to be that - it's the leading part
of the image filename.

There is absolutely no reason why the filename should contain the TNA
reference and it's not that difficult to come up with circumstances
where it might be sensible not to do so. Such as the fact that the UK
and Canadian archives both have RG series. Presumably there are higher
directory levels in Ancestry filenames that avoid any Transatlantic
clash - but there's no reason that there should be, in which case it'd
be CA_RG and UK_RG, say...

It just happens that for the censuses, it was easier to use the TNA
reference than think up a new code. Except...If you look at the 1911
image file names on Ancestry, the initial part of the filename does
indeed consist of the Class and Piece - albeit punctuated *totally*
incorrectly for a TNA reference. However, the rest of it, instead of
being a Schedule and / or Folio, is some sort of incremental number.
That must have everything to do with TNA not bothering to stamp a
folio number on the papers so leaving it to its contractors to make up
a useful identity.

Adrian

Join family-historian@groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.