On Sat, Feb 27, 2021, 12:50
Paul Sillitoe <paul@...
As a newcomer to FH but not to
referencing primary sources, I'm not able to see how the
distinction is being drawn between sources and citations
I think that part of the problem may be that the
term "citation" has two different meanings. To people who are
adept at citing sources in written documents, I think that I'm
right in saying that the whole footnote, endnote,
bibliography, whatever entry is considered as a citation.
In FH and many other systems inspired by GEDCOM,
the information in a real world citation is split between a
source record and what FH users refer to as a citation. If I
look at the cliched source of a book that is referenced
several times (such as a Directory, say), the common bits that
appear in all the printed citations (Directory title,
publisher, edition etc) go into the Source Record. The bits
specific to a single reference (page number, whether it's
primary or secondary information relative to the fact being
supported, quoted text etc) all go into what FH users refer to
as the citation.
The printed citation then contains data from the
source record and the FH-citation.
The contents of the Source Record are
effectively defined by GEDCOM. Ditto the FH-citation. Having
said that, of course, anyone can shift text that someone else
would put into the Source Record over into the FH-citation.
It's all just text at the end of the day. This is the eternal
debate between splitters and lumpers. Does your Source Record
define a single physical object such as a parish register, or
an individual entry in that parish register? It's not a
question that comes up in formal citation guides, I think,
because they only consider the final printed citation, not
where the data is stored in any system.
Anyway, that's my attempt at distinguishing the
source and citation concepts in FH, with a nod to what I think
written citations mean.