I noticed that sources in Rootsfinder have a reference to a repository but it appears to just be a single field entry and is not a link to an actual repository record with all the pertinent information about the repository like it is on Ancestry.com
I see on a Gedcom import you take the information from a REPO record and concatenate it all and dump it in that field which is kind of messy although at least the content isn’t lost. But if something about the repository changed and you wanted to update it there is no way to easily do so across what could be dozens or hundreds of sources.
I have not tested a GEDCOM export from RootsFinder but I’m wondering how that is handled as well, does what was one repository entry on the GEDCOM import become hundreds of REPO records on an export or you just don’t generate any REPO records on an export at all or you try to merge all those repository entries that are exact matches to generate a REPO record?
I’m also wondering if this is because source records in the FamilySearch FamilyTree do not have the concept of a repository for some reason and the Rootsfinder data model was primarily derived or modeled on their API.
Are there plans to actually treat repositories as separate entities at some point in the future? If not is that something you could consider?
It also might be useful to be able to look at a repository and see all the sources in the tree located there, and in turn look at a source and see all the citations/evidences associated with it. But that isn’t nearly as important as being able to properly enter and maintain the data.
Repositories are a bit of an odd thing. I support them on WeRelate.org, but It’s been my experience that most gedcoms don’t use them. And when familysearch didn’t put them in their new data model, I figured maybe it would simplify things if I didn’t either.
I’m certainly open to putting them back. So far you’re the first person who has asked, but if others ask as well hen I will add them.
Regarding export, that’s a good question. I agree that multiplying repositories on export is bad regardless. I will test export and fix it if we are doing that currently, so that identical repositories are output only once.
Thanks for the reply Dallan. If the majority of Gedcoms don’t use them and probably only some even smaller subset of users actually make use of them that does make sense with limited development resources and more important features to focus on.
I really like what you and your team have built so far and where you are heading with Rootsfinder, it is a great service you are providing for a more than fair price and I think it fills a definite need. At least I know for me it does which is why I am going to migrate my tree here and make this the primary location for maintaining it going forward. After examining the options for a couple weeks now and thinking things through I’ve decided that for me that will be a largely manual process, a chance to audit everything as I go and try to be better about documenting and sourcing things even though that will take many months to do. So some of the things I’ve been inquiring about, like this and particularly the media related things, are because I don’t want to have to back track to update or modify too many things later on.
Thank you for the nice comments! The media suggestions are in my mind more important than the repository support. I’m in the middle of some dna enhancements right now, but I plan to gpaddress the media enhancements before the end of this year.