Transferring RM source records to FamilySearch - source/citation format

[PeterS]

I have an RM10 tree with 1000+ people of mainly UK origin. Person data is mapped with data sources/citations many of which came from Family Search record databases. I have created a RM Source (template not freeform) for each of these FS databases and then use the Citation to link to the exact database reference.

This seems to be a very logical way of creating source/citation data records without creating 1000’s of individual source (name) records each its URL link.
I am trying to move some of these source records into Family Search

The record is created in Family Search but none of the essential data I want transferred is included

Is there any I can do to improve the amount of data being created in FamilySearch?
It looks like some of the transferred data is in the Footnote section of the RM source record but the logic of which RM data field get there eludes me
Do I have to create Web Tags (links) at the citation or source level?

[thejerrybryan]

I haven’t played with this in a long time because I decided a long time ago to work directly in Family Tree when I want to update Family Tree. That’s because I found the data model used by RM and the data model used by FamilySearch to be so different that things didn’t transfer the way I wanted. But I was curious about your question, so I decided to play with it again.

I first made a citation in RM using RM’s free form template. I realize you are using an actual RM source template of your own design, but a great deal can be learned by first playing with RM’s free form template. Here are all the fields in the free form template and whether they come across to Family Tree.

----- Master Source fields
Yes   Source Name
Yes   Footnote
No    Short Footnote
No    Bibliography
Yes   Source Text
No    Source Comment
No    Source Ref#
No    Repositories
Yes   Source Web Tags

----- Source Detail fields
No    Citation Name
Yes   Page Number
No    Research Note
No    Detail Comment
No    Detail Ref#
No    Citation Web Tags

With one rather minor adjustment, results with an actual source template should be the same, no matter if it is one of RM’s built-in source templates or if it is a source template of your own design. Namely, the data from your source template sentence will all be there and it will be split between the field that is the Footnote field in the free form template and the field that is the Page Number field in the free form template. When using a real template, no data will be lost by this process. If all of the fixed text and Master Source variables are to the left of all the Source Details variables in the sentence for your template, then all will be well with that data. Otherwise, it will be mangled because RM will have to move all the fixed text and Master Source variables to the left of all the Source Details variables. It does not appear to me that your template variable data is being mangled, so you are ok in this regard.

So what works and what doesn’t work in your case?

I don’t think you need the Short Footnote and Bibliography, so those are probably not a problem.

I don’t think you need Source Comment or Source Ref# or Citation Name or Detail Comment or Comment Ref#, so those are probably not a problem.

RM sends Source Text rather than Research Note, and it appears to me that this is a major problem. It seems to me that RM should be sending the Research Note. There may be some sort of foundational or fundamental reason that RM made the choice to send the Source Text, but if so then I don’t know what it is.

RM sends Source Web Tags rather than Citation Web Tags, and it appears to me that this is a major problem. It seems to me that RM should be sending the Citation Web Tags. There may be some sort of foundational or fundamental reason that RM made the choice to send the Source Web Tags, but if so then I don’t know what it is.

The last two problems are really the same problem - sending the Source data instead of the Citation data. Again, I don’t know why that choice was made, and there may have been a good and valid reason for the choice. I just don’t know what the reason was. It seems like users would have complained about it years ago, but as far as I know, nobody has ever complained. The only solution I would see for you would be to switch over to being what is called a source splitter for these citations so that the Source Text field and the Source Web Tags could be used. This goes totally against what you are trying to accomplish.

Finally, we come to the Repositories. I confess I gave up on trying to use repositories a long time ago. Even before so much data was online, I couldn’t figure out why it mattered which library or Family History Center or Archive I used to get my records when I usually had several choices for the same data. Plus, those kinds of facilities sometimes move and get new addresses or new phone numbers, that sort of thing. I do record where I found a particular record, but it’s just a generic URL or repository name such as ancestry.com or NARA or TSLA. It’s just text and it’s not a full blown repository entry. But if you use the repository field, then RM appears as if it’s not going to send the data. Maybe you could enter the repository data somewhere else, like maybe appending it to the Source name. Or make it into just a text field so that it goes into the Master Source or Source Details part of your sentence. I don’t think it’s going to across to FamilySearch as a true repository field.

I’m hoping you will receive some additional comments that are more positive. I’m afraid mine are not as helpful as I might wish.

[rzamor1]

FamilySearch has a different type of layout with their sources. We try our best to map to the fields we are limited to. They don’t have the concept of source and citation. It’s all in one. This is how it is mapped and what is sent.

The following sections in the Edit Citation panel

Master Source: all fields

Master Source text, media, etc.: only the Source Text and the first WebTag.

Citation Details: all fields (excluding citation name)

Citation Detail text, media, etc.: nothing is included.

[thejerrybryan]

@rzamor1

They don’t have the concept of source and citation. It’s all in one.

This is how it is mapped and what is sent.

The following sections in the Edit Citation panel

Master Source: all fields

Master Source text, media, etc.: only the Source Text and the first WebTag.

Citation Details: all fields (excluding citation name)

Citation Detail text, media, etc.: nothing is included.

I had to double check, but with a couple of minor exceptions, your list and my list are identical. Well, your list is much less verbose than mine and your list is much easier to understand than mine. But the content of our two lists is the same

The minor exceptions are that in your list it is Master Source: all fields whereas in my test it is Master Source: all fields except Short Footnote and Bibliography. In the grand scheme of things, that surely is a trivial difference and FamilySearch probably doesn’t have a place to store Short Footnote and Bibliography anyway,

So what it comes down to is that because Family Search doesn’t "… have the concept of source and citation. It’s all in one. ", then that de facto means that FamilySearch is as extreme source splitter. The only way an RM user can transfer with FamilySearch without data loss is to be an extreme source splitter in their use of RM.

As some long time readers of the various RM forums might remember, I actually am an extreme source splitter in my use of RM. It seems to me that there are several advantages to the source splitting approach. Not the least of those advantages is that source splitting provides an almost perfect transfer of sources from RM to almost any genealogy app in the world. I actually wish the entire world of genealogy software would convert to FamilySearch’s “all in one approach” and get rid of what I think of as a false dichotomy between what are often called “sources” and what are often called “citations”.

I do realize that’s not going to happen. I also realize that many RM users prefer the dichotomy between what often are called “sources” and what often are called “citations”. In the meantime, I do wonder if there might not be a different mapping between RM and Family Search that would better meet the needs if RN users who are not extreme source splitters. For example, maybe as an option RM could transfer the Citation Detail text, media, etc. instead of the Master Source text, media, etc. That seems to be the crux of this discussion.

By the way, being an extreme source splitter in RM does have its disadvantages. One disadvantage is that it makes for a very long list of master sources because master sources are not further sub-divided into different citations. I cope with that issue by being very disciplined in my use of source names so I can find sources very quickly using the search box for sources.

Another disadvantage is that starting with the new user interface in RM8, it is very hard to be a source splitter in RM. The user interface keeps closing my master source fields that I need open and it won’t let me close the source details fields that I don’t need to see anyway. It used to show me only citation names when what I really needed to see was source names, but that situation has been somewhat improved. I have a number of workaround for these kinds of problems that work pretty well for me, but they are hard to describe without making a video. Be that as it may, it absolutely the case that the RM user interface makes it very hard to be a source splitter.