To John Gilliver, I'm sorry that you found my original posting to be so cryptic. I'll try to do better in the future. However, I hope this explanation helps you understand the points you clearly missed. I did not say, nor did I imply, that John Steed should do no further development on BK . I said that "I am not in favor of STRUCTURAL (emphasis supplied) changes" WHEN there are fairly easy workarounds. Structural means, well, structural -- a change to the data structure. When you change the length of a fixed-length field you must reformat every report or screen that accesses that field. Making multiple changes to a program that currently works is not a task to be taken lightly. This is not at all the same as adding reports or finding and correcting bugs. Both jobs are hard but restructuring when it is unnecessary is akin to shooting yourself in the foot before taking a hike. Also, I did not say, nor did I imply, that users should be discouraged from asking questions. Some of us actually learn new things from the questions as well as the answers. Although you phrased it as a put-down, I am sorry that you find my suggestion (to use a source field as an elaboration upon a location) a solution that you would never consider using. Your loss. The specific location that was mentioned in the first question of this thread had to do with a burial plot. I have hundreds of such specific locations. Most of them come from books of interments for cemeteries but some are personal visits or other sources. Being (I hope) a good genealogist, I record the source as the book and use the source "page field" to record the page. This allows an interested person to see exactly where my information comes from. But the "page field" of the source record actually has enough space (80 characters) for me to record not just the citation but also the full transcription of section, lot and plot. The reader benefits from the more detailed citation and by taking advantage of this additional space, my "location" field needs only to be the cemetery name and general location information (usually, city or township, county, and state). I understand that BK is used in countries where the structure of political subdivisions may not be as simple as the United States and that those users may have to make complicated choices in how to record information. Thank you for noticing that I could have been more specific in my example. Instead of "Heidelberg Twp, Lehigh (formerly Northampton) Co, PA" perhaps I should have used 40° 43' 0" N 75° 45' 05" W even though this would no longer be an example of the point I was making. But I assume it would have been less confusing to you and would have avoided the use of an abbreviation unknown to you. That said, it is somewhat surprising to me that you were not able to determine the meaning of TWP since it is the first Wikipedia entry that you see when entered in the (English version) of their search engine. Perhaps you are not aware of the advantages of using Wikipedia. I find it quite useful. Moreover, although obsolete in England for over 100 years, the word "township" is of English origin and is apparently still used in parts of Scotland. I would have expected a UK genealogist to have encountered the term somewhere along the way. You might also consider using Google when you encounter a phrase unknown to you. Try entering the entire phrase "Heidelberg Twp, Lehigh (formerly Northampton) Co, PA" (without the quotes). Jim Ramaley 39° 49' 42? N, 77° 13' 56? W ----- Original Message ----- From: J. P. Gilliver (John) To: bk@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [BK] Number of Characters Allowed In message <3B5AE821160A4496B043217B25019C24@JimRamaleyPC>, Jim Ramaley <jramaley@comcast.net> writes: >John, > >I am not in favor of structural changes to a program to accommodate a >perceived need when that need can be easily handled with a work-around. > >The issue seems to be that folks want to use the Location field in ways >that were not intended. Many of the improvements/additions to the prog. have been as a result of suggestions from users. John is of course free to do whatever he likes!, but often incorporates suggestions if he thinks they are a good idea - or even sometimes if he doesn't, if they can be done easily. (Thanks John; I think some of mine you've implemented may come in that category!) As for "in ways that were not intended", you'd be _amazed_ how various people use things - and, they _don't_ think they are using them in ways that were not intended! [] >There are at least two ways that greater precision can be given in >specifying the location for an event. > >1. Events have a source field. The source screen has several fields >that could be populated to make the citation more geographically >precise. For example, if one wants to specify the section, lot, and >plot number for a grave, there are comment fields, text fields, and >page / reel number fields [that's what I use]. These print out on >reports and you would want to cite a source anyway. Now that _I_ would consider to be using something in a way it wasn't intended: to me, location information doesn't belong in any part of the source. However, you have the right to use it how you wish! (I record village/town, county/state, country in the location field, and finer detail - such as house number/street name, or I suppose plot number/cemetery name though I don't have any of those, in the notes for that event; however, that's just _my_ way of doing it, though it seems several others do something similar.) [] >for understanding, I use "Heidelberg Twp, Lehigh (formerly Northampton) >Co, PA" I don't know "Twp"; I just _assume_ that "Co" means county; and I'm guessing that "PA" is an American state. But certainly not everyone would know. [] One of the suggestions in this thread was that the location field be split into (say) three; my suggestion was that that be made optional, probably on a per-event basis. And I anticipate that doing that would involve quite a lot of work, so I suspect it won't happen. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf once described by Eccentrica Golumbits as the best bang since the big one ... (first series, fit the second) Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

In message <F3800AA1B26F4281B1A6CBC6E98F5C3A@JimRamaleyPC>, Jim Ramaley <jramaley@comcast.net> writes: >To John Gilliver, >  >I'm sorry that you found my original posting to be so cryptic. I'll try >to do better in the future. However, I hope this explanation helps you >understand the points you clearly missed. >  >I did not say, nor did I imply, that John Steed should do no further >development on BK . I said that "I am not in favor of STRUCTURAL >(emphasis supplied) changes" WHEN there are fairly easy workarounds. >Structural means, well, structural -- a change to the data structure. Ah, I thought you meant the structure of the programme. >When you change the length of a fixed-length field you must reformat >every report or screen that accesses that field. Making multiple >changes to a program that currently works is not a task to be taken >lightly. This is not at all the same as adding reports or finding and >correcting bugs. Both jobs are hard but restructuring when it is >unnecessary is akin to shooting yourself in the foot before taking a >hike. I fear BK6 is beginning to look long in the tooth, and a major upgrade will be required soon, with a conversion utility - it's happened before, with BK5 to BK6. (And possibly earlier ones too.) Unfortunately, most of John's time is taken up with tweaks to BK6, so BK7 is unlikely to happen soon. (I asked a year or two ago.) >  >Also, I did not say, nor did I imply, that users should be discouraged >from asking questions. Some of us actually learn new things from the >questions as well as the answers. I certainly do (-:. >  >Although you phrased it as a put-down, I am sorry that you find my >suggestion (to use a source field as an elaboration upon a location) a >solution that you would never consider using. Your loss. I didn't mean to - the more I read, the more I find people are doing things _I_ wouldn't do, but think they are doing nothing that wasn't intended: so, I therefore assume there might be some things I do that I don't think are odd, but others do. >  >The specific location that was mentioned in the first question of this >thread had to do with a burial plot. I have hundreds of such specific >locations. Most of them come from books of interments for cemeteries >but some are personal visits or other sources. Being (I hope) a good >genealogist, I record the source as the book and use the source "page >field" to record the page. This allows an interested person to see >exactly where my information comes from. But the "page field" of the >source record actually has enough space (80 characters) for me to >record not just the citation but also the full transcription of >section, lot and plot. The reader benefits from the more detailed >citation and by taking advantage of this additional space, my >"location" field needs only to be the cemetery name and general >location information (usually, city or township, county, and state). I I see: you're talking about the "citation" or similar fields. I had assumed you were just talking of the "page" field. >understand that BK is used in countries where the structure of >political subdivisions may not be as simple as the United States and >that those users may have to make complicated choices in how to record >information. >  >Thank you for noticing that I could have been more specific in my >example. Instead of "Heidelberg Twp, Lehigh (formerly Northampton) Co, >PA" perhaps I should have used 40° 43' 0" N 75° 45' 05" W even though >this would no longer be an example of the point I was making. But I >assume it would have been less confusing to you and would have avoided >the use of an abbreviation unknown to you. I was just teasing, really - I guessed Twp was township, and I know most of the state two-letter abbreviations: my point if any was that some might not (and also that you have omitted "USA"). I certainly wouldn't have used the long. and lat., but then I tend not to put anything finer in the location field than the name of the town/village - but then my reason for that s mainly that I want events in the same town to list together if I create a list of locations-with-events, which probably doesn't matter to many folk. [] >years, the word "township" is of English origin and is apparently still >used in parts of Scotland. I would have expected a UK genealogist to >have encountered the term somewhere along the way. I certainly have - mostly for South Africa, actually. I hadn't actually come across the abbreviation, though as I've said I guessed it. [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf A clean, neat and orderly desk is a sign of a sick mind. (G6JPG's mind is clearly extremely healthy ...)