TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2005-06 > 1117988226


From: Terry Reigel <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Witnesses: census as event and source
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 12:17:14 -0400
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050605141524.0407aa40@pop.sprynet.com>


On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 14:53:37 +0000, Darrell A. Martin wrote:

> I think this last comment illustrates a key issue. That
> is, the census as a *source* versus the census as an *
> event*. I believe it is crucial to clear thinking, both
> about the census itself and the workings of TMG, to keep
> this distinction in mind.

Hi, Darrell,

I totally agree - it is essential to keep these two concepts clearly
distinguished.

> When a census entry is recorded as an event (in TMG, a
> Tag), it should reflect what the census actually says. It
> does not change the "event" of the enumeration one bit if
> the information is incorrect.

However, here I totally disagree with your conclusions. To me, this
approach completely confuses the idea of source and event. <G>

Some users like to create a census tag that totally and accurately
reflect the census record. To me, that's using a tag to record a
source. One can do that if one wants, and I can see the argument for
it since it creates a single record of the contents of the source for
easy reference. But doing so is not recording an event.

I prefer to deal with the source aspect of a census record with source
and citation entries. I record the _Event_ of enumeration as a tag,
because I think it provides useful information about the life of the
family in clear and logical way. Specifically, it provides a way to
record the location of the family at a certain date, as well as
something about the family's situation, like who was living there
(including children, parents, other relatives, boarders, and hired
help), living conditions (like home ownership or rental, value of real
estate owned, and even ownership of a radio), and occasionally other
interesting information.

True, this information could all be reported in other types of tags,
but I find that the narrative flows more naturally if I record it in
census tags, and narrative output is important to me. For example, I
find a series of residence tags with dates every ten years begs the
question about what happened in between, or before or after the
reported dates. When census tags are used, the reason for the
scattered dates is obvious. I realize other users have different
priorities, which would logically lead them to different methods.

Since I'm reporting an event in the tag, and not recording a source, I
think it's important to have the facts correct as best I can determine
them. Some can only be obtained from the census record, but others,
like correct spelling of names and places, and the relationships
between those present, can be verified from other sources, and I think
it's important to do so if one is reporting an event, rather than
documenting a source.


> But it would be difficult, I think, to
> avoid confusion or the appearance of sloppiness if one
> were to use Roles to identify the *actual* relationship
> in a census Tag rather than the *enumerated* one.

Not at all. One could create roles to identify either. Just be clear
in the wording which you mean. Have it say for example, "with their
daughter" or "with her parents" if you record the actual
relationships. Or, if you prefer to record a source in the tag rather
than the event, say something like "with Jane reported as their
daughter" or "reported to be with her parents." (Actually, I find it
harder to correctly word the reported relationship than the actual
one.)

An alternate point of view....

Terry Reigel


This thread: