Reading and contributing to the "Recording conjugal status of spouses" thread, I wondered: does the "reasonableness check" indicate bigamy? It could only be "possible bigamy", because the death date of previous spouse (or the divorce date if there was one) may not be known. Since, for further-back records anyway, it is quite _likely_ that information might be incomplete, maybe a flag to whether show bigamies or not in the reasonableness report might be desirable, if bigamy is shown, to stop such lines swamping the report (though I'd guess in most databases it wouldn't as second or more marriages are the exception). Then there are the cases (various religions, countries etc.) where bigamy - or even polygamy - is allowed ... (-: -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

I really do not feel that this type of information needs to be "data identified". A term I have just now coined to express the difference between database fields and database content. I think that we are beginning to loose what we mean by database and the idea of what we are doing with this data. Is there a finality, a purpose for the database? For me it is a collection of biographies which includes a study of the lives of the families intertwined. The collection of which will become story books and biographies. I can read in the biography the bigamist state of a person and the lives that lead to this event. The idea of bigamy is a condition of several events and life actions coming together. It is not in itself an event. Let us not confuse Life events with conditions that arise as a consequence of that event. The reasonableness report might well consider overlapping marriages. Like baptisms before birth, that report serves to indicate that I have keyed the wrong numbers for a date. So bigamy is a valid report item. That reasonableness report could also prompt further more accurate research or the need for correction, often a fault of my own doing. Barry P. -----Original Message----- From: J. P. Gilliver (John) [mailto:G6JPG-255@255soft.uk] Sent: Thursday, 11 April 2019 10:37 PM To: bk@rootsweb.com Subject: [BK] bigamy in BK? Reading and contributing to the "Recording conjugal status of spouses" thread, I wondered: does the "reasonableness check" indicate bigamy? It could only be "possible bigamy", because the death date of previous spouse (or the divorce date if there was one) may not be known. Since, for further-back records anyway, it is quite _likely_ that information might be incomplete, maybe a flag to whether show bigamies or not in the reasonableness report might be desirable, if bigamy is shown, to stop such lines swamping the report (though I'd guess in most databases it wouldn't as second or more marriages are the exception). Then there are the cases (various religions, countries etc.) where bigamy - or even polygamy - is allowed ... (-: -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." _______________________________________________ Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/search _______________________________________________ Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref Unsubscribe https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/bk@rootsweb.com Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community

In message <000801d4f0b9$f127f250$d377d6f0$@pycroft.co.nz>, Barry PYCROFT <barry@pycroft.co.nz> writes: >I really do not feel that this type of information needs to be "data >identified". A term I have just now coined to express the difference between >database fields and database content. >I think that we are beginning to loose what we mean by database and the idea >of what we are doing with this data. Is there a finality, a purpose for the >database? Many of us are not sure why we're doing it by now. > >For me it is a collection of biographies which includes a study of the lives >of the families intertwined. The collection of which will become story books >and biographies. That is one particular way of using the data. While you are definitely not alone, there are many other ways. >I can read in the biography the bigamist state of a person and the lives >that lead to this event. The idea of bigamy is a condition of several events >and life actions coming together. It is not in itself an event. I never said it was. > >Let us not confuse Life events with conditions that arise as a consequence >of that event. I wasn't (-: > >The reasonableness report might well consider overlapping marriages. Like >baptisms before birth, that report serves to indicate that I have keyed the >wrong numbers for a date. So bigamy is a valid report item. That's what I was suggesting! You'd need to decide how definite you wanted, though. A second marriage before the death of the first spouse with no known divorce - but, you might not have the death date of the first spouse. And many other variations. > That reasonableness report could also prompt further more accurate research >or the need for correction, often a fault of my own doing. Indeed. That's what the reasonableness report is normally for, I think. > > Barry P. > John. >-----Original Message----- >From: J. P. Gilliver (John) [mailto:G6JPG-255@255soft.uk] >Sent: Thursday, 11 April 2019 10:37 PM >To: bk@rootsweb.com >Subject: [BK] bigamy in BK? > >Reading and contributing to the "Recording conjugal status of spouses" >thread, I wondered: does the "reasonableness check" indicate bigamy? > >It could only be "possible bigamy", because the death date of previous >spouse (or the divorce date if there was one) may not be known. Since, for >further-back records anyway, it is quite _likely_ that information might be >incomplete, maybe a flag to whether show bigamies or not in the >reasonableness report might be desirable, if bigamy is shown, to stop such >lines swamping the report (though I'd guess in most databases it wouldn't as >second or more marriages are the exception). > >Then there are the cases (various religions, countries etc.) where bigamy - >or even polygamy - is allowed ... (-: >-- >J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf > >"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's >money." -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Lucy Worsley takes tea in Jane Austen's Regency Bath. - TV "Choices" listing, RT 2017-5-27