At 07:29 PM 7/19/2006, GenealBruce@aol.com wrote: >I am sending this to the list rather than only to Liz, as others may have an >interest in these and/or have comments and advice to guide me. > >On the Source "Microfilm/CD Information" screens: > 1. What is the purpose of the "Source Label" blank? How is this >intended to be different from the "Source Title"? On a CD, such as a Broderbund CD, the Label of the actual CD could be one thing, but the CD could contain digital images of several books. Therefore, the source label blank. > 2.In the "unpublished section" The Call # field is restricted to 10 >characters even though the field space is larger. ( Character limits on many >other fields in Clooz are similarly limited) Can this be increased? I was >trying to enter "FHL# 0886312 & -3" i.e 2 reels covering the same >subject, from >FHL, and was limited. I'd also suggest that if there were a space for the >"Filmer" or some such designation so as to separate this from the film # >itself, it would be helpful A film #. by itself is somewhat >meaningless unless I >know it is a FHL No. or a film from some other organization.. We have increased the size of this field and several others in Clooz 2.1, which we're working on. >Which brings out another question: I'm not quite sure why the NARA census >films are considered as "published" and the FHL films are not. Because NARA films are considered, by NARA, a publication. Each series of microfilm is a publication. Many of the FHL films are films of manuscript collections that are unpublished. This designation is discussed in Elizabeth Mills' book Evidence. >In importing my Clooz 1.23 data a number of "sources" were assigned to >various items, most notably Photos.and Censuses. As it says in the >Manual, these >will require some attention. In the case of photos, I don't think I see a >need for a "Source" at all. If I have an original photo print in my >collection, which I have given a Personal File #, it is it's own >source, I would think. > It might be somewhat useful to know from whom I obtained the print, or in >the case of scanned or digitally rephotographed copies, who the "repository" >is, but this hardly seems to require a separate "Source" screen. Then don't use the source if it doesn't work for you with Photos. However, if you're trying to document your collection completely, each item in it came from somewhere and that is the purpose of the source forms. I have many photos in my collection that I own. I have an equal amount that came from others, either digitally or copies. It is proper to cite where those photos came from. I even like to know that the source is owned by me. There's also a location field on the source form so you can tell yourself where it is located in your collection. I tried to make data entry for all the Clooz templates the same. It was not in 1.23 and that was not good database design, and it was not good for source documentation. So now data entry is standardized. But just as before, if you don't like something in the program, just don't use it. I suspect that there are many people that will never use some of the unique country census templates, as I never will. But the point is that you have the tools to record your documents properly. My programmer and I are working hard to fix all of the glitches that have been reported for Clooz 2. We are also still trying to help several people use the program to begin with, as it is not opening on their computers. Once we get the glitches resolved, we'll start working on adding the remaining reports. So, we're still a ways from releasing the CD. Just as with the initial release of Clooz 2, I need to ask for your patience with getting Clooz 2.1 out. I have one programmer and he's working as much as I can afford to pay him. Thanks for your support of Clooz! Liz Kerstens www.clooz.com