Organizational Record Archives

By wayneson on Sat, 02/04/2023 - 11:40

Forums

Dear EE,

In studying Chapter 4, QuickCheck Model on p. 170, I was "surprised" by the First Reference Note arrangement. Could you enlighten me as to what prompted leading with item of interest? This seems a departure from the common placement later in the arrangement. Examples at 4.23 did not follow suit. Am I correct to say this is an accomplishment of "emphasis"?

wayneson

Submitted byEEon Sun, 02/05/2023 - 08:40

Wayneson,

The QuickCheck Model on p. 170 treats is an original record in an archive. Archived records were introduced in Chapter 3, with the format(s) for citing them. See especially the discussion at  EE 3.1 (pp. 116–18). Also see the introductory sections to Chapter 4, the chapter in which you are puzzled, specifically 4.1–4.5.

Original records in formally organized archives are typically arranged from the small element to the largest (U.S. Style) or largest-down-to-smallest (International Style).

Following the pattern at 3.1 and 4.5, the First Reference note in the QuickCheck Model at p. 170 arranges (and labels) elements, from smallest to largest, in this order:

  • Specific item of interest (the individual card)
  • Title of card file in which it appears
  • Organizational collection in which it appears
  • Repository identification
  • Repository location

You write:  "Examples at 4.23 did not follow suit."

How so? For the “loose document” example at 4.23, the elements are cited in this order:

  • Specific item of interest (the specific form)
  • Name of file in which It appears
  • Organizational collection in which it appears
  • Repository identification
  • Repository location.

Well, understanding is seeping in...

I seem not always to retain the perspective that I'm learning to cite sources for reports, narratives, etc. ...NOT genealogy software.

"Specific Item of Interest" in the model does NOT refer to the factoid in the narrative which is being footnoted. I am guilty of confusing it with "Detail" in software. That explains my errant assertion that "Examples at 4.23 did not follow suit." It would not make sense to repeat the text of the factoid being footnoted in the "Specific Item of Interest" It is a matter of clearly identifying the levels of source organization.