Forums
When citing census pages for England & Wales -- whether on Ancestry or findmypast -- I tend to use 'database' to indicate the nature of source being consulted. I used to specify 'digital image' but was informed that this is incorrect.
Given that I always consult the image rather than relying on the transcription then what would be the best precise indicator of the derivative? Also, given that the same indexed database has to be accessed before either an image or a transcription can be viewed then what is the best way to distinguish between them? The precise derivative consulted is obviously important if there are transcription errors, or some items that were not transcribed.
ACProctor,
ACProctor,
The basic rule for all citations apply here: Cite what you use.
Typically a provider offers us two things for a census: (1) the original image; and (2) a database entry that extracts part of the data for the person. You say that you primarily use the images. (Wise choice.) However, there are instances in which we do need to cite the database entry. Sometimes, we're calling attention to a problem in that database. Sometimes, we're using a provider that does not give us images.
Our citation should use the appropriate descriptive word to identify what we used—database/database entry or image. If we've used a database entry rather than the image, then there are other differences, because the two are radically different critters: one is an official government record; the other is an incomplete derivative that reflects someone else's opinion of what that image tells us.
On EE pp. 302 and 304, compare (1) 6.50's example for citing a provider's image from the 1911 census of Canada; and (2) 6.51's example for citing a provider's database entry from the 1871 English census. Same provider.
I'm not sure I'm any the
I'm not sure I'm any the wiser. You see, your separation of the 'digital image' and the 'database' is artificial in reality [I'm a software developer with database patents], and I think that's why I'm in a quandry.
The database is simply a form of indexed storage. In this case, that storage includes both the transcription and the image. Yes, most databases have an 'image' or 'BLOB' (Binary Large OBject) data type. Whether a provider's database stores such images directly in their database, or simply stores a link to some separate image storage (e.g. a file name), is deliberately opaque to us, just as whether it involves one or multiple tables. The same index is required to access both the transcription and the image.
Some databases only store the transcription, of course. An example being findmypast's Scottish census images since ScotlandsPeople retain access to the images. However, the same database is used for the Scotland transcriptions *and* the England & Wales transcriptions+images.
Some databases only store the images. Some military service records are in a database where the soldier's name and regiment are database keys, but there is no transcription beyond that keyed information. You can see where I'm going with this: citing it as a 'digital image' is ignoring the fact that it is in a database.
I'm not trying to be obstreperous here. I am confused by the suggested use of the descriptions 'digital image' and 'database' (rather than, say, 'transcription') since they don't reflect the digital reality. The transcription itself is no more *the* database entry than the image is. The database has a set of keyed values (e.g. name, place) and a set of non-keyed values (e.g. the transcription and the image).
ACProctor,
ACProctor,
The problem with using the word "transcription" is that few databases offer transcriptions. Most offer selected bits of data that were extracted from the document. In some cases, the descriptive word would be "abstract." In some, it would be "extract." In some, it's little more than an index entry. In very few, would it be "transcription."
EE citations use the term "database entry" vis à vis "digital image." The database offers both. Our citations need to distinguish between the two.
Are you using the term "entry" to mean only the physical act of entering data into the database?
I think I understand better
I think I understand better now. I appreciate that the textual 'database entry', as you call it, isn't a full transcription, although I have a slightly grey area on that issue here at the moment:
I was accessing a database of 'Anglo-Boer War records 1899-1902'. These contain no images, only summary details, but the source of the source is 'A Gazetteer of the Second Anglo-Boer War 1899-1902 by HM & MGM Jones, Military Press 1999' which are said to contain "transcriptions" (albeit .
I am not using the term 'entry' in the context of database input. I use it in the context of a record found through the search of the database index. Technically, that entry may contain textual items and/or image items. I just want to be precise about which data I actually looked at.
From your response, it sounds like 'database entry' means the textual items, and 'digital image' obviously means the image items. EE uses 'database' a lot, though, so is that implying both text and image?
Sorry, please ignore my last
Sorry, please ignore my last response. I think I'm being a little more dumb than usual.
Having re-read your clarification, I now understand what you meant by "database entry" and "digital image" being the alternatives describing the information consulted, and why you asked about my use of "entry".
When I cite, say, Ancestry or findmypast as a source, I usually indicate "database", but additionally specify which "entry" I accessed. To me, that simply meant the index entry, but to you it implies a particular 'database entry' (i.e. textual data). Had I specified, say, ", image for John Smith ..." then it would have represented the converse case.
I knew it was a difference in our interpretation of the terms but I couldn't see where.
I think I'm there now. Many thanks for your patience.
ACProctor, you've also given
ACProctor, you've also given us perspectives to consider as we continue our own work. Thanks.