See FamilySearch/GEDCOM#386

I wanted to add to this group some initial thoughts that I had previously discussed in another thread not found in this group.

The basic issue is that the GEDCOM Specification does not provide the appropriate data tags to support all of the needs of the genealogy software industry to build well-written citations based around the Evidence Explained ("EE") style of citation building. "EE" has become the de-facto standard way to create citations for genealogical documents, although many individuals have indicated to me in non-scientific surveys that it is too cumbersome to implement in their own documents, resulting in their lack of implementation.

I'm not an expert on "EE" and since I've retired and moved away I don't have regular access to the "EE" book anymore at my library, therefore I can't be too specific, but at this stage it does not matter since I want the system to allow any data to be stored to become a well-written citation, I'm just looking at the basic outline!

Three Possible Solutions to the "Citation" Concern that some application may have.

1. The GEDCOM Specification has, for the most part, always included the basic elements needed to cite the source of a fact! These elements are located in 3 different record types within the GEDCOM specification. Continue with this design and add any fields/tags needed to be more inclusive of all basic citation designs. this would require a review of citation to determine the missing tags.

2. Implement some form of a template solution currently found in software solutions today. This would include the following GEDCOM changes

   a) Create an Official Template Record (Including a new template substitution language)
   b) Augment the Source_Record to accommodate template data.
   c) Augment the Source_Citation structure to accommodate template data.
   d) Augment the Repository_Record structure to accommodate template data.

3. Implement a more robust template structure using two new record types

   a) Create an Official Template Record (Including a new template substitution language)
   b) Create a Citation_Record to house citation specific data, rather than using any current citation based record types and structures.
   c) Leave the Source_Citation Structure as is
   d) Leave the Source_Record as is
   e) Leave the Repository_Record as is

I will expand on these concepts in a later entry.

In the Main topic, under FH7 it says:

As noted in Export Gedcom File Dialog, source templates can be exported as GEDCOM records using a GEDCOM extension. The source templates themselves are not present in GEDCOM files, only the fields defined in a template, which are under a SOURCE_CITATION or a SOURCE_RECORD.

I'm not sure what this really means! The template is exported in the GEDCOM file. For example:

0 @t40@ _SRCT
1 NAME Grave Markers: Rural
1 COLL Advanced
1 CATG Cemetery Records
1 SUBC Markers & Memorials
1 TITL Grave Markers (Rural): {Cemetery}
1 BIBL {Cemetery} <({Location}; {Access_Data})>. {Record_Type}.
1 FOOT {Cemetery} <({Location}; {Access_Data})>, {Item}, {Data_Collection_Info}, {Date_Read_or_Photographed}.
1 SHRT {Cemetery} <({Location})>, {Item}.
1 FDEF
2 NAME Cemetery
2 CODE Cemetery
2 TYPE TX
1 FDEF
2 NAME Location
2 CODE Location
2 TYPE TX
1 FDEF
2 NAME Access Data
2 CODE Access_Data
2 TYPE TX
2 PROM Distance, direction, GPS reading, etc.
1 FDEF
2 NAME Record Type
2 CODE Record_Type
2 TYPE TX
1 FDEF
2 NAME Item
2 CODE Item
2 TYPE TX
1 FDEF
2 NAME Data Collection Info
2 CODE Data_Collection_Info
2 TYPE TX
1 FDEF
2 NAME Date Read or Photographed
2 CODE Date_Read_or_Photographed
2 TYPE TX

Filed in FamilySearch/GEDCOM#348

My own preference though is to allow source records to have a containment relationship to solve this problem, rather than having a new record type.

The current templates extension proposal addresses this with:

SOUR (Collection) ext:_TPLT-SOUR

A source record for the collection in which the containing record is present.

See FamilySearch/GEDCOM#347

Currently the proposed provenance extension only covers derivation provenance, not stewardship provenance, even though it mentions need for both.