[TSC-public] Filing Sources
packrat74 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 3 12:11:41 CST 2014
Thank you, Sue! I need to make a list of what was passed down to me, and
your post is a good reminder. The US National Archives just had a
three-day virtual fair with live streams, and while I was in the chat room,
I asked one of the organizers if we could have a session about "being your
own archivist" in a future fair.
Yes, I agree completely. If I say "RG14 / 18172 / 25" to anyone who does
research in the UK, it is instantly recognizable as a census reference. I
store my digital images for that census year all in the same folder marked
"1911 Census RG 14" under my main folder for census records. The only
exception I make is that I separate the 1841 and 1851 images which both
have HO reference numbers.
I have software which allows me as an end-user to catalog my books, CD, and
DVDs, but to date, I haven't been able to find anything to help me organize
the documents which I have collected. People tend to say "well why don't
you just use the book collecting software to do it?" or "why do you need a
catalog, just use search on the computer to find the file", totally
ignoring the fact that you can't find a file if you don't remember what its
filename is. As you say, the 'tyranny of bibliographic thinking'.
packrat74 at gmail.com
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Family Folk <familyfolklore at gmail.com>
> On 03/11/2014 01:45, Enno Borgsteede wrote:
> As an end-user, I can't really speak to what Family Historian does
> 'underneath the hood'.
> That's true, but the real problem as I see it is that like most GEDCOM
> based programs, it was designed around GEDCOM structures, and because of
> that, it confronts you, user, with GEDCOM entities. You are confronted with
> repositories, sources, and citations, the latter sometimes called master
> source and source details, because of the underlying design. In other
> words, when it comes to the things that you work with, the stuff under that
> hood is all too visible, creating a complexity that is not well understood
> outside the desktop genealogy software world. Archives don't work like
> that. They're way more like what you see in EE.
> Finally, someone has noticed the importance of archives! And we would do
> well to pay close attention to how archivists handle information about
> thier collections. Archival accession, arrangement and description
> processes cover much of the same ground as genealogist's evaluation of
> sources. If you need a quick introduction to archival principles, this
> blog post should help:
> Provenance of a Personal Collection – Archival Accession, Arrangement
> and Description
> Archival catalogues are multi-level hierarchies because that is the best
> solution available. There are several international and widely adopted
> archival standards that we should borrow from e.g. ISAD
> To my mind a formatted citation is a short abstract of the archival
> catalogue, so needs to accomodate information held at different
> hierarchical levels.
> In this respect, archival catalogues differ from bibliographic catalogues,
> which don't have hierarchies. I believe EE was sustantially influenced by
> the Chicago Manual of Style, a bibliographic standard. For my taste, EE is
> too bibliographic in character. In the USA, the Family History Library,
> which is a stange hybrid, being a library of microfilms that contain
> archival records, has been highly influential for decades. I think that
> has shaped the thinking of many along bibliographic lines.
> I contend that all sources are ultimately archival in nature. I might
> start ranting about the 'tyranny of bibliographic thinking'.
> *Sue Adams*
> *Family Folk*
> Web: familyfolk.co.uk
> Blog: Family Folklore Blog <http://familyfolklore.wordpress.com/>
> [image: Family Folk logo]
> TSC-public mailing list
> TSC-public at fhiso.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the TSC-public