Distinguishing between archives, sources, and third-party publishers

[StoltHD]

@GeorgeWilmes

But I know that such links could someday break, or that the organization of their catalog could change.

That is why you add a date of visit in the citation (as shown at: yyyy-mm-dd).

[GeorgeWilmes]

@bartfeenstra, thanks for sharing the detailed example. Can you please confirm or clarify my understanding?

• The marriage announcements (events E2602 and E2603) and the marriage (event E0338) all share a citation C0052 (the marriage banns) which is tied to source S0051 (Burgerlijke Stand Blankenham), which is linked to repository R0000 (Historisch Centrum Overijssel)?

• The citation C0052 has a media file O0052 (the image that you got from FamilySearch), which has a citation (where is the id?) linked to source S0044 (FamilySearch’s version of the source), which is linked to repository R0024 (FamilySearch)?

[bartfeenstra]

@GeorgeWilmes

But I know that such links could someday break, or that the organization of their catalog could change.

@StoltHD

That is why you add a date of visit in the citation (as shown at: yyyy-mm-dd).

Yeah. Unfortunately there’s nothing you can do about that. The internet can be fleeting like that. Dates are the usual mitigation, but not a solution. I am hoping to extend Betty to check all links (but not URLs in arbitrary text such as citations or notes) and emit warnings for those that are not found.

@GeorgeWilmes

The marriage announcements (events E2602 and E2603) and the marriage (event E0338) all share a citation C0052 (the marriage banns) which is tied to source S0051 (Burgerlijke Stand Blankenham), which is linked to repository R0000 (Historisch Centrum Overijssel)?

Correct, although the marriage (E0338) shouldn’t, but that’s a data management error on my part as the citation is a certificate of the banns/announcements, not the marriage itself. The Burgerlijke Stand of the gemeente Blankenham (S0051) is the source (the continuous births, deaths, and marriages records), and the Historisch Centrum Overijssel (R0000) is the archive of the province Blankenham is located in, because in the Netherlands it’s mostly been the provinces that have indexed and published their municipalities’ records. I’m not sure if this is the best repository to assign, as the source data does not live with the province, but with the gemeente Steenwijkerland, which is the municipality Blankenham is currently part of.

@GeorgeWilmes

The citation C0052 has a media file O0052 (the image that you got from FamilySearch), which has a citation (where is the id?) linked to source S0044 (FamilySearch’s version of the source), which is linked to repository R0024 (FamilySearch)?

Correct. The citation is Blankenham > Huwelijksbijlagen 1843-1882 > image 43 of 726 - Lankester & Feenstra ancestries, which admittedly is still a rather empty page (we have some work to do on citation, source, and repository pages).

[PLegoux]

@bartfeenstra

Correct. The citation is Blankenham > Huwelijksbijlagen 1843-1882 > image 43 of 726 - Lankester & Feenstra ancestries, which admittedly is still a rather empty page (we have some work to do on citation, source, and repository pages).

Google tells me your site contains a malware, it doesn’t use https protocol but hpqp…

[bartfeenstra]

@PLegoux

Google tells me your site contains a malware, it doesn’t use https protocol but hpqp…

Uh-oh! That sounds ominous. How can I check this myself? I’ve never heard of that error, but I should look into it.

[bartfeenstra]

Ah, I think the last deployment was somehow interrupted and my web server was left with https only partly configured. All should be fixed now! Thanks for letting me know

[PLegoux]

That’s okay now

Thanks

[bartfeenstra]

@bartfeenstra

It took a bit longer than intended as I had to add support for this

This change has now been merged into the master branch and will be released in Betty 0.3.0, for those who’d like to try this out themselves