I have been giving some thought to sources and citations in Gramps with respect to the Evidence Analysis Process Map from Evidence Explained among other things.
There are some changes I think might be beneficial to make and I wanted to solicit feedback from the Development team as to whether others see them as useful and whether a PR might be accepted for them.
Sourceobject schema would be extended to add a
SourceTypewould allow the source to be identified as an original record, derivative record, authored narrative, or unknown.
Citationobject schema would be extended to add
EvidenceType, and an
InformationTypewould allow the information cited to be identified as primary (firsthand) information, secondary (secondhand) information, or information of an undetermined origin.
EvidenceTypewould allow the information cited to be identified as providing direct, indirect, negative or unknown evidence.
Eventis actually a collection of assertions and those are not modeled separately in Gramps the
assertion_listwould contain a list of
AssertionTypeobjects to indicate what assertions the citation supports.
AssertionTypewould classify an assertion as being about a type (can be either attribute or event type), a date, a place, a name, or a relationship. Note while relationships have types I think assertions about them need to be identified separately.
I think the above would be sufficient to develop some kind of evidence analysis report for use in helping formulate a genealogical proof argument.
It might also be used to generate some metric to better measure the quality of the information as well. I know the “confidence” attribute is intended to capture that, but that is a subjective measure of the researcher.
A written proof argument is of course saved as a note, and I imagine most people use the “Report” note type for that purpose. But it might also be nice to have a specific “Proof Argument” type for notes as well to make them easy to identify. An evidence analysis report would also be able to identify them then.