Source, Information, & Evidence

According to Evidence Explained by Elizabeth Shown Mills, ”sources are artifacts, books, digital files, documents, film, people, photographs, recordings, websites, etc.” (see page 24)  Information is the content of the source.  Evidence “represents our interpretation of information we consider relevant to the research question or problem.” (see page 25)  So in order to classify evidence we need both information and a research objective.  Even though the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) does not include a step to define research goals, I’ve included it as part of the Genealogy Research Process Map because it is implied.  Step one of the GPS states:

“We conduct a reasonable exhaustive search in reliable sources for all information that is or may be pertinent to the identity, relationship, event, or situation in question.”
The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual, page 1.

How do we know which sources to search if we don’t have a research objective?  The definitions of direct and indirect evidence also points to the need to have a defined research objective:

Direct evidence – relevant information that seems to answer the research question or solve the problem all by itself.
Indirect evidence – relevant information that cannot, alone, answer the question;
Negative evidence – an inference we can draw from the absence of information that should exist under particular circumstances.
Evidence Explained, page 25

Even the definition for negative evidence hints at a research objective.

So how can we set the citation quality value for evidence in RootsMagic or any other genealogy software unless we have a research objective?

A research objective can be in the form of a question, statement, or hypothesis.  The following are all valid research objectives:

• What was Worth Tucker’s birth date and place?
• Where was Worth Tucker born?
• Worth Tucker was born 30 Nov 1870 in Ashe County, North Carolina.
• Was Worth Tucker born in 1869 or 1870?

How specific the research goal depends on the researcher and what they want to discover.

In RootsMagic, a source can be associated with a person, family, or fact:

And for each citation of a source you can specify a value for citation quality for source, information, and evidence.  But to classify evidence, what is the research objective implied or otherwise?

Let’s say we have a book that we use as a source.  It was created by its author and is an original source.  The source information is entered in the Master Source section and appears in the Master Source List.  A specific page of that book is specified in the Source Details section and some information from that page is entered as part of the Source Detail Text.  This information then needs to be evaluated based on who provided that information: the informant.  If the informant was a participant or eyewitness, then we can say that the information is primary, otherwise it is secondary.  Now we come to evidence.  We take that piece of information and compare it to our research objective, but since we don’t have one we must infer it from what the citation is related to: person, family, or fact.  It is important to note that it is usually the researcher that should determine the research objective and not the software. 

Since we don’t have research objectives, only what the citation is associated with, then we must imply the research objective.  This can be tricky. 

Evidence for Fact Citation

Since a birth fact allows you to enter date, place, and place details does information in the source we are citing need to contain all of this information before we can say that it is direct?  Put another way, is the implied research objective:

What is the date, city, county, state, and specific place of Worth Tucker’s birth?

or it is

What is the date and place of Worth Tucker’s birth?

Do they both mean the same thing?  There is room for ambiguity.  Not to mention the fact that as a researcher, maybe I wanted the research objective to be a statement or a hypothesis:

Worth Tucker was born 30 Nov 1870 in Ashe County, North Carolina.

Depending on the fact, the software ask us to enter different information:

• Birth – date, place, place details
• Alternate Name – given names, surname, prefix, suffix, name type, nickname, date
• Education – date, place, place details, description
• DNA – DNA results
• LDS Baptism – date, temple, status, live/temple

One workaround for fact-based citations is to define a guideline that the citation quality can be marked as direct only if all possible entry fields for that fact type are filled in completely.  If a date or place is only partially filled in or the information doesn’t allow all fields to be filled in, then it is indirect.

Evidence for Person Citation

What would be the implied research objective for a citation associated with a person?

When you add a new person it asks for given name(s), surname, prefix, suffix, sex, and nickname plus some vital facts.  So I guess the workaround for this situation is to have the research objective be:

What is the complete name, sex, and optional nickname of Worth Tucker?

If the information from the source can answer all the parts, then it is direct; otherwise it is indirect.

Evidence for Family Citation

Now what about the implied research objective for a citation associated with a family?

What are the complete names of both parents and all children as well as the birth order of the children for the marriage of Worth Tucker and Florence Abby Pulsipher?

If the information in the source can answer all parts of the question, then the evidence is direct.

An Eye to the Future

Part of the reason for the current implementation in RootsMagic 4 and similar software could be the decades-old focus on research results and not research analysis.  My first genealogy software was a DOS version of PAF.  Before using that software, all research and any conclusions I came up with were done on paper.  Even the first versions of PAF only allowed you to enter a single date for birth, christening, death, and burial.  So the software was intended only to record the results of your research.  Modern genealogy software allows you to enter multiple facts/events of the same type and associate a source citation to it.  That way, you could have half a dozen birth entries containing different values or different levels of detail as the your research required. The software is able to keep track of ongoing research, and not just results.  I think genealogy software will continue to innovate and allow more and more research collection and analysis to occur in the software.  That is the direction that citation quality is pointing in RootsMagic 4 and the similar feature in Family Tree Maker 2009.  The next logical step is to allow the software to define research projects each with their own research objectives.  These research objectives would then be associated with source citations and citation quality therefore clarifying the use of the classification of evidence as direct or indirect.

I strongly encourage users of RootsMagic to use this feature, but in its current implementation there are a few gotchas and workarounds that need to be followed.

The Genealogical Proof Standard & Evidence Explained define research analysis classifications for a source, information, and evidence. A source is an object (or person) that contains (or has) information. A source can be classified as original or derivative. An original source is in its first oral or recorded form. Everything else that comes from an original (or another derivative) is a derivative. For example, a book is an original. Let’s say that it is a census enumerator’s book that he carried from house to house to take the census. Now let’s say that book is microfilmed and stored at an archive. The microfilm copy is a derivative. The digitization of the microfilm is a second generation derivative of the original. Without getting into the special cases of image copies, duplicate originals, and record copies, it is relatively easy to start uncovering the provenance or ancestry of the source you are using for your research back to the original source. The classification of a source as original or derivative helps to answer the question “Is there a better source?” and helps in your analysis as original sources usually carry more weight than derivative.

In RootsMagic 4 on the Edit Source screen, you see both the Master Source and Source Details sections.  The information in the Master Source section is independent of the details recorded when a specific source is cited for a person, family, or fact. 

When you click on the Quality button you see the three categories for sources, information, and evidence with their possible values:

Mapping this screen to the previous, the Source category refers to the Master Source section and the Information category refers to the Source Details section.  I’ll discuss the Evidence category in another gotcha.  What this is saying is that a source is original or derivative independent of the information that it contains.  The book, A History of Emery County, is an original source written by Edward A. Geary and it remains an original regardless of the degree of knowledge (firsthand or secondhand) of the informant that provided the information contained on page 179 or any other page. I can understand putting all three categories on the same screen to simplify things for the genealogists using the software.

In the current implementation in RootsMagic 4 (version 4.0.3.0) the problem is that all three categories are associated with the Source Details section.  This is a problem because this source appears in the Master Source List and can be used to cite multiple sources:

What that means is that if you set the Source as Original for the first citation, it will not be reflected in subsequent citations.  Creating a second citation from that same Master Source List entry will default the Source to “Don’t know” and it must be set independently.  Let’s suppose you have 10 citations (different Source Details) for a single Master Source List entry.  You could have 5 set to Original, 3 to Derivative and 2 to Don’t know.  And if you change the value for one citation it is not reflected in the others.  Worst case, this is confusing plus requires extra work to make sure all of the sources are consistent.

The current work around is to add a Master Source Comment indicating that this source is original or derivative and then each time you cite this existing source, check the comment before setting the quality classification for Source.

It is my hope that in a future release, there will be a way to set the source as original or derivative from the Edit Source screen off the Master Source List:

Then when that source is cited again the Quality screen would default the Source to that same value.  The Source in the Quality screen could be read-only or if editable any changes would be reflected in all citations derived from that same master source.

I hope this constructive criticism is taken how it is intended: to make an important feature the best that it can be.

As early as the 1997 book, Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian, Elizabeth Shown Mills has covered the topics of citation and analysis.  It is this second item, analysis, that is the focus of this innovator award. In Evidence! we start to see the formation of the current classification for sources (as original or derivative) and evidence (as direct or indirect).  The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual published in 2000 supports the classification of sources (as original or derivative), adds a classification for information (as primary or secondary), and continues the classification of evidence (as direct or indirect).  These classifications remained unchanged in Professional Genealogy which was published in 2001.  By 2006 as seen on quick sheet, Evidence Analysis: A Research Process Map by Elizabeth Shown Mills we see the formation of a new evidence classification so in addition to direct or indirect we can classify evidence as negative evidence.  When Evidence Explained was published in 2007 it restated these same classifications for sources (original or derivative), information (primary or secondary), and evidence (direct, indirect, or negative).

The winner of the next innovator award not only supports Evidence Explained citation templates but has coded these professional analysis practices into their software in a way that is approachable to all.  So a big congratulations goes out to Bruce Buzbee and his RootsMagic team!

Let’s look at the implementation in more detail.

In RootsMagic 3, we had a way to specify the quality of a source but the feature in RootsMagic 4 is dramatically improved.

Here is the citation quality dropdown list from the Edit Citation Details screen in RootsMagic 3:

The list contains primary, secondary, questionable, and unreliable.

Compare that to the citation quality screen from RootsMagic 4:

As you can see, RootsMagic 4 supports separate classifications for source, information, and evidence and fully supports these classification following Evidence Explained.

You get to this screen by clicking the Quality button on the Edit Source screen:

The next closest competitor of this feature is Family Tree Maker 2009, but the software fails to acknowledge the existence of negative evidence:

I am not sure when each product officially released this feature. The best I can estimate is that Family Tree Maker 2009 was released the first of February 2009 and RootsMagic 4 the end of March 2009.  I was aware of this feature in RootsMagic 4 all the way back in July 2008.  Since RootsMagic 4 handles negative evidence, it gets the award.

I feel that this is a transformational innovation because as more genealogists and family historians at all skill levels use this common terminology, analysis will become more consistent and communication will become more clear.  Look for other genealogy software (desktop as well as online) to support citation quality following the genealogical standards in Evidence Explained in the near future.

There are some changes and additonal improvements that I would to see in the area of citation quality that I would like to address in future posts. This is truly an exciting time.  Genealogy software is moving more towards helping with reserach analysis and not just the recording of research results.  Thanks RootsMagic for being a leader in this area.

To see other ThinkGenealogy Innovator award winners, visit the winners page.

In Better Online Citations – Details Part 1 we examined how the QuickCheck model for “Book: Basic format” from Evidence Explained was coded in Family Tree Maker 2009, Legacy 7, and RootsMagic 4. From the screens we were able to identify implementation differences between the three applications. There are also differences between the applications in how citation information is conveyed via a GEDCOM export. The individual fields shown on the template screens are lost in the standard GEDCOM export making it impossible to create a rich EE-style citation in one application, export it to GEDCOM, and import it into another application while retaining that richness. In all cases (except when the exporter and importer of the GEDCOM is RootsMagic 4), the citation is changed from a “Book: Basic format” to a generic “old-style” (pre EE) format with important details lost.

In the previous post I skipped all details of the file format needed to support online downloadable source citations. From my own observations, from survey feedback as well as comments on this blog and through e-mail there are two main camps when it comes to this topic. One group feels that the best approach to take is an extension to the existing GEDCOM 5.5 standard (which was released in 1996). They feel that it is the best choice to lower the barrier of adoption and avoids YAFF (Yet Another File Format). See the comments from Tamura Jones from Part 1. The second group is open to a new file format based on XML (Extensible Markup Language) which has wide support among programming languages. As a programmer I lean slightly to the side of XML and that is what I used in the prototype shown in the video. But I am open to either view.

In that spirit of openness, I will first look at how the three applications that support EE-style citations represent those citations in an exported GEDCOM file. In this post, we will look at sections of GEDCOM which is a little technical but there will be plenty of explanations for readers of all levels. From the previous post we saw differences in how each application implemented the EE-style QuickCheck model and this post will show differences in how each exports them. You will also see some forethought in the export from one vendor.

For those who have never seen a GEDCOM file, each line starts with a number: 0, 1, 2, etc. A zero is the beginning of a new record and higher numbers are “nested” under lower numbers. It is a way of grouping information together. In the GEDCOM fragments I show here, I will indent the lines to make them easier to understand. I have also done some slight rearranging of lines to make the comparisons easier. After the number, each line has a tag which is a shortened identifier of the information contained on that line. You can see definitions of the standard tags here.

A GEDCOM file starts with a header that describes the software application that generated the file as well as the version of the GEDCOM standard:

Family Tree Maker 2009

0 HEAD
	1 SOUR FTM
		2 VERS Family Tree Maker (18.0.0.305)
		2 NAME Family Tree Maker for Windows
		2 CORP The Generations Network
	1 DEST GED55
	1 GEDC
		2 VERS 5.5
		2 FORM LINEAGE-LINKED

Legacy 7

0 HEAD
	1 SOUR Legacy
		2 VERS 7.0
		2 NAME Legacy (R)
		2 CORP Millennia Corp.
	1 DEST Gedcom55
	1 GEDC
		2 VERS 5.5
		2 FORM LINEAGE-LINKED

RootsMagic 4

0 HEAD
	1 SOUR RootsMagic
		2 VERS 4.0
		2 NAME RootsMagic
		2 CORP RootsMagic, Inc.
	1 DEST RootsMagic
	1 GEDC
		2 VERS 5.5.1
		2 FORM LINEAGE-LINKED

The first line starts the header record which contains a source program (SOUR) that generated the file and a destination program or format (DEST) that will use the file. The level under source shows the program, version and company information. The GEDC or GEDCOM tag identifies that the file adheres to the specified GEDCOM version and format. FTM and Legacy shows 5.5 whereas RM shows 5.5.1. GEDCOM 5.5.1 was published as a draft in 1999 but the changes between it and GEDCOM 5.5 do not affect our discussion. The rest of the header record was removed as it is not important for our comparison. Even though the numbering and abbreviations take a little getting used to, the file format is pretty straight forward. The rest of the file is just as understandable.

As you might remember from the video, we have my great grandfather Worth Tucker who owned property in Elmo, Emery, Utah. The source of this information was a book. From the book we have 4 images: three that go with the source entry and one for a specific page that should be associated with the citation or source detail. Lastly, there is an extract from a page added as the citation text.

Here is what part of that looks like:

Family Tree Maker 2009

0 @I00001@ INDI
	1 NAME Worth /Tucker/
	1 SEX U

Legacy 7

0 @I1@ INDI
	1 NAME Worth /Tucker/
		2 GIVN Worth
		2 SURN Tucker
	1 SEX U

RootsMagic 4

0 @I1@ INDI
	1 NAME Worth /Tucker/
		2 GIVN Worth
		2 SURN Tucker

These next lines start an individual (INDI) record (notice the 0 prefix). The ID between @ characters (ex: @I00001@) uniquely identifies this person record from any other person records in the file. The name of the person is indicated in one or two ways. The NAME tag requires the full name with the surname between “/” characters. The name can also be broken in given name and surname as represented by GIVN and SURN. Some formats set the gender or sex to U for unknown or don’t include the tag unless it is set.

Included in the individual record is the property ownership event:

Family Tree Maker 2009

1 EVEN 80 acres
	2 TYPE Property
	2 DATE 1908
	2 PLAC Elmo, Emery, Utah

Legacy 7

1 EVEN 80 acres
	2 TYPE Property
	2 DATE 1908
	2 PLAC Elmo, Emery, Utah

RootsMagic 4

1 PROP 80 acres
	2 DATE 1908
	2 PLAC Elmo, Emery, Utah

FTM and Legacy choose to use generic event tag with a corresponding qualifying type of “Property” whereas RM simplifies it by using the property tag. Both are equivalent. Each includes the property description of “80 acres” and the date and place of ownership.

GEDCOM supports the concept of a master source with its information and multiple citation details corresponding to an event. In part 1, this concept was shown in the application screens in two screens (FTM 2009 and Legacy 7) or a single screen with different colored top and bottom sections (RootsMagic 4). The way this is represented in the GEDCOM format is to have a separate source record with a unique id and to reference that source record for the specific event being cited. Additional citation details are then given. Notice that the below section starts at level 2 and appears in the file at the same level as PLAC and right below it. This signifies that the event being cited is the parent level 1 or the property ownership event.

Family Tree Maker 2009

2 SOUR @S00002@
	3 PAGE 179
	3 DATA
		4 TEXT In 1908 Eliza Oviatt filed on eighty acres and Worth Tucker purchased
			5 CONC eighty acres of an adjacent school section. These properties became
			5 CONC the Elmo townsite, platted into lots that were sold to prospective
			5 CONC residents for $10.

Legacy 7

2 SOUR @S4@
	3 PAGE 179.
	3 DATA
		4 TEXT In 1908 Eliza Oviatt filed on eighty acres and Worth Tucke
			5 CONC r purchased eighty acres of an adjacent school section. The
			5 CONC se properties became the Elmo townsite, platted into lots t
			5 CONC hat were sold to prospective residents for $10.
	3 OBJE
		4 FORM jpg
		4 FILE C:\Users\mtucker\Documents\RootsMagic downloads - test\historyofemerycounty-page179.jpg
		4 _SCBK Y
		4 _PRIM Y
		4 _TYPE PHOTO

RootsMagic 4

2 SOUR @S1@
	3 PAGE 179
	3 DATA
		4 TEXT In 1908 Eliza Oviatt filed on eighty acres and Worth Tucker purchased e
			5 CONC ighty acres of an adjacent school section. These properties became the E
			5 CONC lmo townsite, platted into lots that were sold to prospective residents f
			5 CONC or $10.
	3 OBJE
		4 FORM jpg
		4 FILE C:\Users\mtucker\Documents\RootsMagic downloads - test\historyofemerycounty-page179.jpg
		4 _SCBK Y
		4 _PRIM Y
		4 _TYPE PHOTO
	3 _TMPLT
		4 FIELD
			5 NAME Page
			5 VALUE 179

The source tag (SOUR) here references the source record with the unique id between the “@” characters. We will look at its details in the next section. The level 3s and higher are for the citation detail. This citation is from page 179 of the source and text from that page is represented by the TEXT tag under the DATA tag. The concatenation tag is used to break up lengthy text onto multiple lines. Both Legacy 7 and RootsMagic 4 export the directory path to the image file of page 179. This is done with the object (OBJE) tag which specifies that the format of the file is jpg. The next three tags begin with an underscore character “_” which means that they are custom extensions to GEDCOM made by applications and that other applications are not required to support them. It appears that both Legacy and RootsMagic have chosen to support these tags. The _SCBK tag indicates if this image should appear in the scrapbook or media viewer inside the application with a Y value signifying “yes”. The _PRIM tag indicates if this is the primary image which is shown in the application in situations where only one image about the citation is shown. The _TYPE tag identifies this as being a photograph as opposed to some other media type. RootsMagic 4 has done something above and beyond the other vendors. It supports a custom template tag (_TMPLT) which we will investigate in a minute.

Before we continue it might be helpful to review page 646 from Evidence Explained to see how the Book: Basic format is represented as a source list entry, full reference note, and short reference note:

Take just a minute to examine the fields for each type, formating, as well as the ordering and contents of the author field.

The final section of the GEDCOM file that we will examine is the actual source record:
Family Tree Maker 2009

0 @S00002@ SOUR
	1 TITL Geary, Edward A., A History of Emery County
	1 NOTE
		2 CONC Geary, Edward A..  A History of Emery County:  .  Salt Lake City:
		2 CONC Utah State Historical Society, 1996.

Legacy 7

0 @S4@ SOUR
	1 ABBR History of Emery County
	1 TITL A History of Emery County
	1 AUTH Edward A. Geary
	1 PUBL Salt Lake City: Utah State Historical Society, 1996.
	1 OBJE
		2 FORM jpg
		2 FILE C:\Users\mtucker\Documents\RootsMagic downloads - test\historyofemerycounty-frontcover.jpg
		2 _SCBK Y
		2 _PRIM Y
		2 _TYPE PHOTO
	1 OBJE
		2 FORM jpg
		2 FILE C:\Users\mtucker\Documents\RootsMagic downloads - test\historyofemerycounty-titlepage.jpg
		2 _SCBK Y
		2 _TYPE PHOTO
	1 OBJE
		2 FORM jpg
		2 FILE C:\Users\mtucker\Documents\RootsMagic downloads - test\historyofemerycounty-copyrightpage.jpg
		2 _SCBK Y
		2 _TYPE PHOTO

RootsMagic 4

0 @S1@ SOUR
	1 ABBR History of Emery County
	1 TITL Edward A. Geary, A History of Emery County (Salt Lake City: Utah S
		2 CONC tate Historical Society, 1996), [Page].
	1 _SUBQ Edward A. Geary, A History of Emery County, [Page].
	1 _BIBL Edward A. Geary. A History of Emery County. Salt Lake City: Utah S
		2 CONC tate Historical Society, 1996.
	1 OBJE
		2 FORM jpg
		2 FILE C:\Users\mtucker\Documents\RootsMagic downloads - test\historyofemerycounty-frontcover.jpg
		2 _SCBK Y
		2 _PRIM Y
		2 _TYPE PHOTO
	1 OBJE
		2 FORM jpg
		2 FILE C:\Users\mtucker\Documents\RootsMagic downloads - test\historyofemerycounty-titlepage.jpg
		2 _SCBK Y
		2 _PRIM N
		2 _TYPE PHOTO
	1 OBJE
		2 FORM jpg
		2 FILE C:\Users\mtucker\Documents\RootsMagic downloads - test\historyofemerycounty-copyrightpage.jpg
		2 _SCBK Y
		2 _PRIM N
		2 _TYPE PHOTO
	1 _TMPLT
		2 TID 372
		2 FIELD
			3 NAME Author
			3 VALUE Edward A. Geary
		2 FIELD
			3 NAME Title
			3 VALUE A History of Emery County
		2 FIELD
			3 NAME SubTitle
		2 FIELD
			3 NAME PubPlace
			3 VALUE Salt Lake City
		2 FIELD
			3 NAME Publisher
			3 VALUE Utah State Historical Society
		2 FIELD
			3 NAME PubDate
			3 VALUE 1996

FTM takes a shortcut and using the format specified for source list entry, puts that as the source note. The title (TITL) comes from how FTM automatically named the source when it was created. There are two things to note about the NOTE text: 1) it does not have a way to indicate that the book title should be italicized and 2) there appears to be extra periods and spaces in it.

Legacy 7 takes the approach of trying to stuff the EE-style citation into the fewer fields available for the “old-style” citation. There are 6 parts of a source list entry citation for a basic format book:

1. Author
2. Main Title
3. Sub Title
4. Place of publication
5. Publisher
6. Year

Legacy 7 implements the basic book template with the following fields (the last two pertaining to the citation detail):

1. Author Last Name
2. Author Given Name(s)
3. Author Suffix
4. Title
5. Short Title
6. Publisher City
7. Publisher State
8. Publisher
9. Publish Date
10. Volume Data
11. Page
12. Volume

The standard fields available in GEDCOM are:

1. Title
2. Author
3. Publication

So Legacy makes the following matches:

• GEDCOM Title = Title
• GEDCOM Author = Author Given Name(s) + Author Last Name + Author
• GEDCOM Publication = Publisher City + Publisher State + Publisher + Publish Date

Note that there is some formatting according to the source list entry and can be seen in the PUBL tag as it follows the order of fields and contains the colon and comma in the correct location. Also, the abbreviation (ABBR) tag is used to name the source in the master list after it is imported. The rest of the GEDCOM contents from the Legacy 7 file specify the 3 media files associated with the source. Nothing new there.

I have yet to do additional experiments to determine how the translation to “old style” citations works with more complicated citation formats.

Finally we look at RootsMagic 4. It also uses the abbreviation and object tags in the same way as Legacy 7. But some interesting things are happening in the rest of the file. Notice that the title tag follows the format for a full reference citation complete with parenthesis, commas, and colons. The title is between special formatting tags < i > and < /i > to indicate that it should be italicized. Where the page number should go is the textual placeholder “[Page]”. The custom subsequent tag (_SUBQ) contains the short note format although it should just contain the author’s last name. The custom bibliography tag (_BIBL) contains the source list entry format. It appears that a bug in the export is causing the bibliography entry to not show author with last name first. It is important to note that any application that imports a RM4-generated GEDCOM will get only the contents of the title tag and will have to manually edit it to remove the italicization indicators which they don’t support.

Now let’s get to the part where RootsMagic 4 has shown some innovation in their GEDCOM. Remember the custom template (_TMPLT) tag we saw for the citation:

3 _TMPLT
	4 FIELD
		5 NAME Page
		5 VALUE 179

There is also one in the source:

1 _TMPLT
	2 TID 372
	2 FIELD
		3 NAME Author
		3 VALUE Edward A. Geary
	2 FIELD
		3 NAME Title
		3 VALUE A History of Emery County
	2 FIELD
		3 NAME SubTitle
	2 FIELD
		3 NAME PubPlace
		3 VALUE Salt Lake City
	2 FIELD
		3 NAME Publisher
		3 VALUE Utah State Historical Society
	2 FIELD
		3 NAME PubDate
		3 VALUE 1996

Now compare that with the source entry screen:

Notice that in the yellow Master Source section, there are 6 entry fields: Author, Title, Sub-title, Publish Place, Publisher, and Publish Date. These correspond to the 6 template (_TMPLT) field name entries in the GEDCOM: Author, Title, SubTitle, PubPlace, Publisher, and PubDate. In the green Source Details section Page corresponds with the field name entry is the citation section: Page. The value tags contain the actual value. That way the details of knowing individual fields and values is not lost. Completing this is the template id or TID tag that is a unique number used internally by RootsMagic 4 to always refer to this template. That is why you can never edit existing templates in RootsMagic 4.

Here are the details of the template for id 372 as shown in the Source Templates screen:

It is interesting that each field is given a type to indicate if it is a Name, Place, Date, or Text. This could come in handy in future situations. Imagine searching all sources not just for the text “White” but for all sources that contain a name that contains “White.” Searches like that would return more appropriate results.

So what have we discovered is that the current three applications that support EE-style templates do so slightly differently on the input side (part 1) and vary greatly when it comes to GEDCOM output. As it stands today much is lost in the GEDCOM export rendering rich citations into blobs of text. RootsMagic 4 solves this problem in a proprietary way using its own template id and template fields names.  Currently no real interoperability exists between these applications when it comes to EE-style source citations.
This post is already long enough and I will likely expound on my ideas in a follow-up post. But imagine the RM4 implementation standardized and universally accepted. What a world of interoperability that would open up!

There is so much to think about. What do you think?

For those who want to know more, here are the details.

We will first start with the QuickCheck models found in Evidence Explained. These models can be used by software developers as a feature specification:

This example from page 646 specifies that a basic book citation consists of 7 parts:

1. Author
2. Main Title
3. Sub Title
4. Place of publication
5. Publisher
6. Year
7. Page

It also indicates the format of the citation specifying where to put commas, colons, periods, and parenthesis as well as when text is italicized.

These QuickCheck models as well as other citation formats specified in EE (Evidence Explained) have been coded into Legacy 7, Family Tree Maker 2009, and RootsMagic 4.

Now even though each of these 3 desktop genealogy applications used EE for their spec and received clarification from their outside business analyst, Elizabeth Shown Mills, there are slight variations in the implementation by each. To prove this, here are comparisons of each application and how it deals with a book citation:

RootsMagic 4

Legacy Family Tree 7

Family Tree Maker 2009

Here is a comparison of these three applications showing different interpretations of the EE citation model:

So currently we have 3 applications that support EE and each are slightly different. What is needed is a standard that each can measure up against so as more applications support these citation formats, tests can be created to verify compatibility. Some sort of consortium needs to be created to discuss the current differences and come to a consensus of opinion.

Let’s say that process has already occurred and agreement has been reached. Now a standardized file format can be designed to handle the additional level of detail required for the citation models. In some ways this file format would serve a similar purpose as GEDCOM, but would be updated with the capability of handling more-detailed source citation and referencing media such as images and files.

When visiting a website that supports this new file format, the researcher will encounter a download button or link that references that file:

In the above example, the link references a file called book.cite. The .cite extension represents a file of a specific content type (called a MIME type) identified as: application/cite+xml. The important thing to know about this is that a .cite file can now be uniquely identified from other content types.

We will not discuss the actual structure of the file at this point. Details will be provided in a later post.

When the researcher clicks the link, the web browser (in this case Firefox) prompts us if we would like to save or open the file:

As can be seen from the screen, the file is correctly identified as a CITE file and picks the default application used to open the file, ClickCite Launcher.
Part of the prototype code that I wrote was an application called ClickCite Launcher. Its purpose is to intercept CITE files and pass the file along to an importer application. The ClickCite Launcher application would need to be installed on the researcher’s computer and part of the installation would make a file association between .cite files and ClickCite Launcher. This is how Firefox knows which application to use.

The launcher application and the file association are for a computer running Windows. I am not familiar with Mac computers in this regard, but it would surprise me if a similar capability was not available.

This launcher application is aware of all installed applications that support importing of CITE files and presents the user with a list of desktop genealogy applications:

After an application is picked from the list and Import is clicked, the launcher application would start the importer application and pass it the book.cite file. The launcher application would likely be open source software whereas each desktop application that supported CITE files would provide their own importer. In the video demonstration, the importer for RootsMagic 4 presented no user interface and just updated the database file for the most-recently opened database, test.rmgc. The developers of the importer could choose to show a user interface that might include a list of all previously created databases and allow the user to choose which database would be the target of the import.

The process is depicted in the following diagram:

1. Genealogist clicks download link which causes the browser to download the file onto his/her computer.
2. When the file is manually opened or opened by the browser when the Open option is selected, Windows runs the application associated with the extension. In this case, .cite is associated to the launcher application. The launcher receives the location of the downloaded CITE file.
3. When Import is clicked on the launcher, the importer for the selected genealogy software is started and passed the location of the downloaded CITE file.
4. The importer loads the CITE file and adds information to the application’s database file.

I hope this addresses some of the technical questions that I have been receiving.

 ”RM4 is officially code complete.”

http://twitter.com/rootsmagic/status/1225567243

Congratulations Bruce and team!

In a recent post, Bruce Buzbee teased the genealogy software community by smudging the text of a mysterious 4th tab.  In a way I hate to be the spoiler and steal Bruce’s thunder, but I can’t help myself.  Actually it is Bruce’s fault.  He threw down the gauntlet and issued the challenge.  Maybe after Bruce is finished getting mad at me, he will give me a copy of RootsMagic 4 for being so clever.

As some of you may know, I am a Software Architect for my day job so writing code is one of the things that I do.  We’ll I was able to take the sample screen shots of RootsMagic 4 and plug them into an algorithm which in simple terms I will call a “desmudger.”  Since the smudging was done using the Gaussian Blur algorithm that is common in most graphics programs, it wasn’t hard to find a code sample of that algorithm and modify it to come up with the reverse.  The cool thing is that my algorithm requires at least three image samples in order to triangulate correctly and thanks to Bruce, I had three different screens shots.  What good fortune for me!  Here you can see that each of the smudge samples is just slightly different requiring at least three for the algorithm to work.

For all the work I put into the preparation, it was a shame that it was over so quickly.  Maybe I should have thought ahead and at least programmed a drum roll into the simple application.  Anyway, when I saw what the text on the 4th tab was, I immediately had that “oh that makes total sense” feeling.  It is one of the most requested wishes of all the beginner genealogists that I have talked to.  Below is a link to an image of the tab area with the mystery tab revealed.  Click on it only if you really want to know what the tab is.  There is no going back after you click it.  Please don’t hate me too much Bruce.

Spoiler link – Click only if you really want to know

In the last few posts at RootsMagic Blog, Bruce has leaked some new features of the upcoming RootsMagic 4. He says he will start small and progressively reveal more. The buzz is starting and you can sense the excitement as you read the comments. Some readers are trying to guess what the new features will be while others are hoping that their wishlist items will be included. Not all of the new features hinted at in the screen shots are explained by Bruce, so I thought that I would get in on the fun and use my keen eye to try and figure things out.

I honestly have no inside information myself, so don’t take my guesses as fact.  I simply opened my copy of RootsMagic 3 and compared it to the screen shots of RootsMagic 4.  It was almost like trying to solve one of those puzzles you would find in the Highlights magazine.

The first thing that I noticed was a tiny down arrow to the right of the Add Person toolbar item:

This probably drops down the same Individual, Spouse, Parents, Child menu as in RootsMagic 3. This is a simple change but a better user experience as it indicates that there are choices to be made.
 

The next thing I noticed was that the Notes icon on the toolbar has been flipped:

Not really a new feature, but did anybody else notice it too?  This makes me wonder if Bruce received a lot of e-mails from users who were bothered by what they thought was a “backwards” image. 
The next to last icon on the toolbar is a tree icon that looks very similar to the tree on the new FamilySearch website:

It is already known that RootsMagic 4 will support the new FamilySearch (NFS) once the APIs are ready. This is probably just what the icon will look like. It is my understanding that RootsMagic has been working a long time with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on implementing the NFS API. RootsMagic might just be the first desktop genealogy application to support it.

I noticed that on the Pedigree, Family, and Descendant tabs on the far left side is a long thin bar with an arrow:

My guess is that this would open a sidebar that contains the list of people in the database and maybe even allow for searching.

The big mystery so far is what is the fourth tab? In the screen shots, the tab next to Descendants is blurred out.

I’ve spent a few minutes looking at the size of the smudge and comparing it to a smudge I made for the word “Family.” My guess is that the smudged word contains 5-7 letters. So that excludes “Map”, but the word could be “Source” or “Person” or “Synch.”

Go ahead and post your guesses. You might be right in which case you will have bragging rights. If not, you can join the rest of us interested guessers.