Hi all,
I am sorting my family physical archives and want to use them as citations within my tree. I am not satisfied with my present approach. I defined:
- repository as my archive box in my attic,
- source as every folder related to a given ancestor,
- citation as a specific item inside a folder.
Unfortunately, the latter item does not fit in the “traditional” definition of a citation because its extent is too wide. For example, I may use a resume as a citation for an event without pointing to page and line (so that the same “citation” can be shared for all events mentioned in the resume).
I feel that my “source” should be the physical item with the “citation” pointing to the relevant part but, then, all “sources” would be stuffed together in the “repository” omitting the sorting step brought by the folders.
My problem is the inventory of all memorabilia from within Gramps without using an external tool. Since all folders are gathered inside the same box, I don’t want to create separate “repositories” for the folders (which I would then need to bind together in some way).
Any idea?
You could have a folio system.
The repository is the PGerlier Attic Fond. Each folio is a top level source with its Call number (left of the decimal), where its only content is an Index Note that lists the separate “volume” items in that folio. Then slowly expand Sources (hyperlinked from the index Note and with “volume” call numbers that are the parent folio plus a decimal index number) for each item in the index note.
This allows for Citation at the volume, page and line level of detail.
The problem with this is that you have to decide whether it is flexible enough if you attic fond grows? Its organization is like a library where the call number to the left of the decimal is a library physical location of the building, floor, stack, shelving unit, shelf. Then the items on the shelf are the volumes. Its fine at the beginning. But if a shelf or stack grows, it needs to push all the subsequent call numbers.
I think you should stay with your current process. However, you can add further details by putting specific details in the Page/vol field. You could develop a coding scheme. If you need to find that record later you could enter those key words in the search field to find the record.
You could also use the Attributes if needed.
Thanks @emyoulation and @Davesellers for sharing your ideas.
I’ll have a good night sleep on them and experiment tomorrow. I’ll try to make a mix.
I keep the repo as designating my archive box as it is the physical storage object. I revert to the “pure” notion of source describing a single material object. However, I’ll attach a Note to it naming the folder label. Thus the sources reside in the repository as expected but I can filter on the note to list all “sources” in the repo folder.
Citation then can have its “traditional” role.
I won’t assign an attribute because, in my workflow, attributes are additional properties intrinsic to genealogical data. Here, the folder is only a storage artefact (stationary) to subdivide the repo-box for quick access. This artefact has no genealogical meaning per se.
I once thought of “layered” sources:
- one (main) source for the folder, linked to repository,
- one (auxiliary) sub-source for the data itself with a Link note to point to the folder-source
However, this leads to a convoluted structure inside the source where both data and folder point to the repo. The Link note can be shared among all data inside a folder, making filtering/selection easier, but Gramps has presently no provision for hierarchical records inside a type (like Source).
So, I’ll let night do its job and see tomorrow how ideas settled.
Try searching the internet with search terms like: “genealogy home archiving”.
I found an article called Home Archiving for the Genealogist. It suggests that “family historians can definitely benefit from learning how archivists work” which is something that I’ve heard before.
You may also want to consider organising your archive into collections. Including archive catalogues into Gramps with a hierarchy is something that I’ve considered in the past.
1 Like
I use a single Repository for my home archive. I treat each book, certificate, etc. as a separate Source. A book that I have in my possession vs. a different edition of the same book that I accessed in a library would have nearly identical Sources, linked to different Repositories and having different Repository Reference details. In that case Media Type would be the same, but Call Number and Notes (attached to the Repository Reference, not the Source) could be different. For me, citations are not affected by which Repository holds the Source.
2 Likes
Thanks George.
After thinking over it and making a few paper experiments, I’ll go for it. I already do so for the official archive sites where I use a “layered” naming schema where every source is designated by a sequence of “archive department/category”, book/record name and reporting period.
The “archive department/category” will be replaced by the designation of the folder.
Thus, I revert to a standard usage.