TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2004-03 > 1078374977


From: "Gregory Winters" <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] FTM Import and Footnotes
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 23:36:17 -0500
In-Reply-To: <00fe01c4014e$6cb032a0$6401a8c0@charliexv>


Jim:

I understand completely (and appreciate) the detailed breakdown you give
below, but it seems that we have an apples and oranges thing going on here.
I understand the issue of Citations appearing in footnotes and how that all
works, but what is the crux here is the nature of a footnote and what it's
used for. As I mentioned in my last post, in any report (not just
genealogy), the set of citations is a *subset* of the set of footnotes -
there are numerous other types of data which can appear as footnotes. This
means that the reporting engine should comprehend these linguistic motifs
and not arbitrarily assign them a status which simply isn't valid.

For example, if I simply wish to add a remark to my data in a particular
database field, there is no necessary reason to create an artificial
citation for that remark. It is simply that: a remark. It has no
significance outside of that unique database element. In her book,
"Evidence!", Elizabeth Shown Mills states the following about footnotes:
"...[F]ootnotes (source citations *and* [emphasis mine] explanations
appearing at the foot of each page and endnotes...are the recommended forms
for genealogists..." This is a clear differentiation between two different
types of footnotes.

I know that TMG sees these FTM footnotes. How? When I do a GEDCOM import,
they are all there! The only problem (a BIG one): TMG considers them all
*sources*. In a database, Sources and Citations might be *collected* in a
List of some sort, but they are originally assigned to FIELDS. This means
that the four scenarios you cite below do not have to conflict as elements
of that database. In FTM, there is a Master Source Box. That Master Source
Box should automatically map directly to TMG's Master Source List (which it
seems to do OK). Next, comes the Citation Source and the Citation Text.
These, also, map directly to TMG's Citation/Citation Detail areas. The FTM
footnote is a *separate and distinct* field - it may or may not repeat the
Source data, Citation data, or Citation text, but regardless, it should be
allowed to somehow map as a Note attached to its corresponding TMG database
field (i.e., Name, Birth, Death, etc.). If the FTM user did not have
his/her Citation information in the Citation boxes in FTM, then they would
have no just cause to wonder, if Citation information was never entered into
the proper places in FTM in the first place, why it didn't show up properly
in TMG.

The FTM Help file entry you quoted is a bit misleading. It insinuates that
Sources and Citations are handled in the same manner in the footnote area,
but they are not. There is a checkbox for the user to select whether or not
to repeat *Citation* information, not Source-Citation. Yes, the Source
automatically appears (linking it permanently to the footnote box), but
repeating the Citation text is *optional* - there is nothing to 'type over.'
(If I want to create a simple footnote, I don't need EITHER a Source or a
Citation and the footnote will still be assigned to that database field and
still print.) It's for this reason that I followed Bob Velke's advice and
created all of the missing Sources in the FTM file. He said nothing about
having to create missing Citations.

But I digress...

The issue is not how each application handles Citations. The issue is: why
can't we add non-referenced footnotes (i.e., 'explanations' per Ms. Mills)
to database fields in TMG, and why can't these footnotes be imported from
other applications? I cannot find anything in the BCG Genealogical
Standards Manual that requires all footnotes in a proper genealogy report to
be cited.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Byram [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 1:36 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [TMG] FTM Import and Footnotes

Greg,

Like I said yesterday... I take no issue with what you did in FTM. As long
as you're in FTM, the data works as you intended. The problem comes when you
want to transfer the data to another program.

As to expectations as to how that field might be used in FTM...
The screen is named 'Source-Citation'.
The field is named 'Footnote: (Printed format)'.
Help says: 'Footnote - Shows how this source-citation will appear when you
print it. You can change the footnote text by typing over the default
footnote text.'

That gives you some idea of what was intended for the use of this field but
doesn't restrict you as the user making other choices.

The choices as to what to do with this field are:
1) Leave it along. Accept the default footnote. I don't know if the default
footnote text is stored in the database or is generated on the fly (likely
the latter).
2) Make edits of the default text to modify the footnote used in reports.
3) Completely replace the text in the field with source citation text of
your choice.
4) Completely replace the text in the field with text of your choice that
has nothing to do with a source citation.

TMG obviously allows you to output both source citation text and memo text
(from any tag) as footnotes. These two types of outputs come from entirely
different data tables and data structures... one is source data and one is
tag data that has nothing to do with sources.

An import module that imported the footnote data would need to assume that a
database had made use of all four of the above Footnote field uses and to be
able to distinguish between them.

The current import imports source data (including the source, the citation
detail ('Page'), and the citation text). The page and citation text data are
imported to the TMG citation detail field. This has served the needs of the
vast majority of users who have imported FTM data into TMG. They got their
source data imported as it was entered into FTM. I don't recall if the
footnote issue has arisen before or not.

If the footnote text were imported, the import module would need to
distinguish between the four cases above. A user who used the footnote field
as in case 1 or case 2 wouldn't want the data imported because of the
unnecessary duplication of data after import in the TMG citation detail
field.

The next problem is how does the import module distinguish between case 2
and cases 3 & 4. A user would generally not want to import case 2 text but
would want to import case 3 & case 4 text.

The next case is how to distinguish between case 3 text (source text) and
case 4 text (text that has nothing to do with sources). If this were
possible, the case 3 text could go to the citation detail field. Where would
the case 4 text that has nothing to do with sources be imported to?

If (with 20-20 hindsight) these issues were understood when starting to use
FTM, the Source Citation could have been used in such a way that there would
have been no problem importing the data.
1) A dummy source could be created.
2) The text could go into the citation text field.
3) The footnote field could be edited to delete the dummy source.

This would let you have free (source or non-source) text printed in
footnotes. I understand your explanation for why you chose the Footnote
field rather than Citation text but it did have downstream consequences when
it came time to move your data out of FTM. I'm not pointing any fingers.
This happens to all of us even within TMG. You spend years entering data one
way and discover that you want it done another way. You then have to go
through your database and clean things up... sometimes a large undertaking.

Jim



==== TMG Mailing List ====
Send all messages and replies to <>.

This thread: