Has genealogy been declared illegal, or did I somehow screw up my killfile? -- Wes Groleau There are two types of people in the world … http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1157

Healthy Chick With Bare Body Waiting For Core Se)( New Wallpapers http://bikini-wallpapers21.blogspot.com/

Bayside Bikini Boozed Showing Her Pussy Near Pool Nice Shots http://hot-wallpapers24.blogspot.com/

Sexy Lesbi Kissing Her Friend & hands pressing Boobs Hi Fi Scenes http://russian-brides21.blogspot.com/

German Hottie Caught While Making Love With Her Apple Titts Super Gallery http://romantic-wallpapers21.blogspot.com/

Pretty Babe [email protected] Feeling Shy to [email protected] Herself Spicy Pics See Here http://dating-girls15.blogspot.com/

Perhaps it's something in my personal psyche or a misfire in some important brain synapse, but for the LIFE of me I cannot wrap my mind around the notion of *intending* to collect bits and pieces of "evidence" and leaving them lying about, unconnected to one another. The question of WHY keeps intruding -- WHY would I wish to draw a reasonable conclusion from the facts on the ground? WHY would I wish to go through the conclusion-drawing process each time I looked at a "Real Person"? WHY waste that much time? WHY do I keep rising to the bait here ... tms wrote: > On Jul 20, 7:27 pm, Tom Wetmore<[email protected]> wrote: >> Breathing life into an old thread! > > It was a thought-provoking thread. > >> I don't see combining the date from one persona with place from another to be a problem. When you decide that this is the right thing to do you have made a conclusion. The "higher level" person that "sits >> above" the linked personas is the perfect place to record this conclusion. In my view the higher level >> person record that links the lower persons should inherit the info from the lower persons whenever >> that is possible, but that any conflicts or ambiguities or negative evidence should be resolved >> explicitly by information that is added at the higher level. Here the lower level presents the evidence >> and available information, and the next higher interprets that information as necessary with the >> necessary conclusions to resolve any issues. Isn't that what "conclusion persons" are? > > But if you do that, then you lost the ability to do automatic undos, > which I thought was one of the specs. > >> Likewise, I believe you can solve the conundrum you have described for the gentleman from the Eastern >> Shore. > > Hey! That's no way to talk about my gg-grandmother. > >> You link together all the hard evidence you have, and in the records that hold those links, you >> give your conclusions and your explanations. You make the higher level person records hold the >> facts as you believe them to be, with whatever notes you need to add, and simply let those records >> link together the records that have the evidence that you have physically found. > > But doesn't that break the model of building conclusion-people out of > evidence-people? What I mean is that not all of the evidence is > people. Or perhaps I didn't understand your model. What you say here > is, as I understand you, a better model, with the bedrock being the > sources, the personas built on the sources, and the conclusions built > on both. > > BTW, despite your disparaging comment earlier, I think LifeLines is > great. It isn't perfect, but its flexibility, its principal asset in > itself, allows work-arounds for most problems, and its use of Gedcom > allows workarounds for the rest.

I don't understand either. Nothing I have ever said implies any intention to collect bits and pieces of evidence and leave them lying about, unconnected. Just the opposite, the whole purpose of collecting the evidence is be able to build justifiable conclusions. They are linked into the conclusions they support. There is nothing odd here. This is simply the historical and scientific processes, where evidence is gathered and conclusions derived therefrom. Why WOULDN'T you wish to draw a reasonable conclusion from the facts on the ground, though I have no idea what message you are trying to imply by saying that facts are on the ground? What do you mean by a "real person?" Do you believe a simple record you found from 200 years ago is a "real person." No, it's not. It's nothing but an item of evidence. It's up to you to do the necessary research and make the necessary conclusions as who that bit of evidence refers to. In many cases this is a very hard, and often impossible, decision to make. When you are doing this stuff for real the notion of a "real person" is the hardest concept of all. I recommend you try to get a better understanding of the differences between person-based and record- based genealogy. I think you are colored in your thinking by only considering person-based work. In person-based genealogy you know exactly who you are looking for and you simply find and file away the records you gather with the correct person. Eventually you reach the point that you don't fully know who you are looking for and you have to collect the records first and decide who the persons were later. This is the border between person-based and record-based that is important. All the stuff about persona and evidence and making conclusions is geared to the world you enter when you must embrace the records-based world. This is the world you enter when you need to become a real genealogist. When you do it right, you don't waste time.

For me undoing means deciding your conclusions were wrong. So when you unlink evidence it seems only right to remove the conclusions that describe why you combined them. Others have argued that you shouldwant to keep around the information that you earlier made and unmade decisions, but for me, this is much too subtle and overkill-ish. For me all undo means is that we keep the personas inviolate, so that we can rearrange our evidence into better-reasoned conclusions later. I grant you that I may over-stress the idea that codified evidence should only be in the form of personas, as I don't believe this to be true. But the persona seems to capture so many of our needs that I use it as the central talking point. Thanks for the good words about LifeLines. I can't decide whether to modify it to handle personas or to start from scratch. I'm now in love with developing for the Mac, so I'm pulled in different directions.

On Jul 20, 7:27 pm, Tom Wetmore <[email protected]> wrote: > Breathing life into an old thread! It was a thought-provoking thread. > I don't see combining the date from one persona with place from another to be a problem. When you decide that this is the right thing to do you have made a conclusion. The "higher level" person that "sits > above" the linked personas is the perfect place to record this conclusion. In my view the higher level > person record that links the lower persons should inherit the info from the lower persons whenever > that is possible, but that any conflicts or ambiguities or negative evidence should be resolved > explicitly by information that is added at the higher level. Here the lower level presents the evidence > and available information, and the next higher interprets that information as necessary with the > necessary conclusions to resolve any issues. Isn't that what "conclusion persons" are? But if you do that, then you lost the ability to do automatic undos, which I thought was one of the specs. > Likewise, I believe you can solve the conundrum you have described for the gentleman from the Eastern > Shore. Hey! That's no way to talk about my gg-grandmother. > You link together all the hard evidence you have, and in the records that hold those links, you > give your conclusions and your explanations. You make the higher level person records hold the > facts as you believe them to be, with whatever notes you need to add, and simply let those records > link together the records that have the evidence that you have physically found. But doesn't that break the model of building conclusion-people out of evidence-people? What I mean is that not all of the evidence is people. Or perhaps I didn't understand your model. What you say here is, as I understand you, a better model, with the bedrock being the sources, the personas built on the sources, and the conclusions built on both. BTW, despite your disparaging comment earlier, I think LifeLines is great. It isn't perfect, but its flexibility, its principal asset in itself, allows work-arounds for most problems, and its use of Gedcom allows workarounds for the rest.

Breathing life into an old thread! I don't see combining the date from one persona with place from another to be a problem. When you decide that this is the right thing to do you have made a conclusion. The "higher level" person that "sits above" the linked personas is the perfect place to record this conclusion. In my view the higher level person record that links the lower persons should inherit the info from the lower persons whenever that is possible, but that any conflicts or ambiguities or negative evidence should be resolved explicitly by information that is added at the higher level. Here the lower level presents the evidence and available information, and the next higher interprets that information as necessary with the necessary conclusions to resolve any issues. Isn't that what "conclusion persons" are? Likewise, I believe you can solve the conundrum you have described for the gentleman from the Eastern Shore. You link together all the hard evidence you have, and in the records that hold those links, you give your conclusions and your explanations. You make the higher level person records hold the facts as you believe them to be, with whatever notes you need to add, and simply let those records link together the records that have the evidence that you have physically found.

On May 23, 7:52 am, Tom Wetmore <[email protected]> wrote: > > How should we store evidence in genealogical databases? I'm way behind in my reading, so please forgive me for butting in so late. I have a few comments. I don't think that building up conclusion-people by simply linking personas will be sufficient. I often find that the best conclusion for a birth, for example, might combine the date from one record with the place from another. Another problem is that not all evidence can be recorded as a persona. Sometimes the evidence is indirect; sometimes it is even negative. As a concrete example, consider my attempts to figure out where one of my gg-grandmothers, Henrietta Carroll, was born. Censuses say she was born in Maryland, which makes sense since that's where everyone else in the family is from. Her death certificate says she was born on the Eastern Shore. So far, so good, but where on the eastern shore? Her second husband's Civil War pension file contains that statement that he, the second husband, had known her since childhood. Unfortunately, that doesn't help much, since we don't know where he was from. However, we do know that the second husband's first wife was from Tobaccostick in Dorchester county. We also know that the second husband's brother's wife was from Dorchester county. A reasonable, if tentative, conclusion is that the second husband was also from Dorchester, and thus Henrietta was from Dorchester. But how would one indicate that if all one could do is link personas?

The Factree thread prompted me to fiddle with the templates facility in Gendatam Suite. Horrors - some of the templates did not present properly. This seemed to be a knock-on effect of some other change in the program and fortunately was easily corrected. How about that for informal testing. The Evidence Template facility in Gendatam Suite involves using a mark-up language to define the template and this appears on-screen rather like a computerised paper form. There is a set of 'default' templates programmed in and it is also possible for the user to define their own templates. This latter however involves knowing the mark-up language they use. If you have Gendatam Suite installed look in the FORMS directory for some examples, although as these are blank forms they do not have field definitions. Now, getting to the point, as the templates contain known fields, they can be programmatically integrated so that the relevant records can be automatically generated from the template data. This involves tagging the field definitions in a particular manner through the command parameters. I have found in use that this automatic facility is a bit dangerous. The program may find potential duplicates and will request your guidance. You then have to be extremely careful as any wrong move may be difficult to reverse, particularly if you do not notice until later. I end up taking a series of backup copies of the file just to be on the safe side. So I wondering is any one has any advice in the matter: Is it sensible (a) to let users use a markup language to generate templates for what in effect would be a visual database where they can enter, save, view and edit data. (b) allow them to specify the appropriate tags so that their templates are integrated into the progam and can be used for automatic record generation. Any thoughts welcome, thanks.

On 14/07/2011 23:12, Ian Goddard wrote: > singhals wrote: >> Ian Goddard wrote: >>> Wes Groleau wrote: >>>> On 07-13-2011 08:41, Ian Goddard wrote: >>>>> Looking at the blurb on the archived site it appears that it requires >>>>> form templates and only one (for one specific year of US census) is >>>>> supplied with the free download so unless it was that particular >>>>> source >>>>> you wanted to use it on I think you'd have been disappointed anyway. >>>> >>>> But can you make your own templates? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Who knows? But it seems to be an academic question as the original >>> website now seems to be off-net. >>> >> >> Someone must be paying for the domain-name though -- e-mail to the >> CONTACT address has not yet bounced. >> >> Cheryl > > The ownership does indeed seem unchanged: > > Administrative Contact: > Harper, Marie [email protected] > The Genealogy Shop 309 Jefferson Street > Madison, IN 47250 > US > 18124939838 > Technical Contact: > Harper, Marie [email protected] > The Genealogy Shop 309 Jefferson Street > Madison, IN 47250 > US > 18124939838 > > > and there's a recent update: > > Record last updated on 21-May-2011. > Record expires on 05-Jun-2012. > Record created on 05-Jun-2006. > > but the site is a blank template full of ad-links. > Searching for the address only gives a law firm. There is still a Marie Harper in the Madison telephone directory.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:11:41 -0400, Denis Beauregard <[email protected]> wrote: >Le Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:48:26 -0400, singhals <[email protected]> >écrivait dans soc.genealogy.computing: > >>Ian Goddard wrote: >>> Wes Groleau wrote: >>>> On 07-13-2011 08:41, Ian Goddard wrote: >>>>> Looking at the blurb on the archived site it appears that it requires >>>>> form templates and only one (for one specific year of US census) is >>>>> supplied with the free download so unless it was that particular source >>>>> you wanted to use it on I think you'd have been disappointed anyway. >>>> >>>> But can you make your own templates? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Who knows? But it seems to be an academic question as the original >>> website now seems to be off-net. >>> >> >>Someone must be paying for the domain-name though -- e-mail >>to the CONTACT address has not yet bounced. > >They call them speculators or sharks. They buy expired domain names >with the hope they will resell it or make enough money with the clicks >to have a profit for the 8$/year investment... > >The site owner is NETFIRMS.COM, likely a domain name reseller. Yes, it is. AFAIK they are a legitimate domain service for people wanting their own domains. They do have limited free domains, but most are pay-for. I have two domains there which are not in use at the moment. > -- Don [email protected]

singhals wrote: > Ian Goddard wrote: >> Wes Groleau wrote: >>> On 07-13-2011 08:41, Ian Goddard wrote: >>>> Looking at the blurb on the archived site it appears that it requires >>>> form templates and only one (for one specific year of US census) is >>>> supplied with the free download so unless it was that particular source >>>> you wanted to use it on I think you'd have been disappointed anyway. >>> >>> But can you make your own templates? >>> >>> >> >> Who knows? But it seems to be an academic question as the original >> website now seems to be off-net. >> > > Someone must be paying for the domain-name though -- e-mail to the > CONTACT address has not yet bounced. > > Cheryl The ownership does indeed seem unchanged: Administrative Contact: Harper, Marie [email protected] The Genealogy Shop 309 Jefferson Street Madison, IN 47250 US 18124939838 Technical Contact: Harper, Marie [email protected] The Genealogy Shop 309 Jefferson Street Madison, IN 47250 US 18124939838 and there's a recent update: Record last updated on 21-May-2011. Record expires on 05-Jun-2012. Record created on 05-Jun-2006. but the site is a blank template full of ad-links. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

Le Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:48:26 -0400, singhals <[email protected]> écrivait dans soc.genealogy.computing: >Ian Goddard wrote: >> Wes Groleau wrote: >>> On 07-13-2011 08:41, Ian Goddard wrote: >>>> Looking at the blurb on the archived site it appears that it requires >>>> form templates and only one (for one specific year of US census) is >>>> supplied with the free download so unless it was that particular source >>>> you wanted to use it on I think you'd have been disappointed anyway. >>> >>> But can you make your own templates? >>> >>> >> >> Who knows? But it seems to be an academic question as the original >> website now seems to be off-net. >> > >Someone must be paying for the domain-name though -- e-mail >to the CONTACT address has not yet bounced. They call them speculators or sharks. They buy expired domain names with the hope they will resell it or make enough money with the clicks to have a profit for the 8$/year investment... The site owner is NETFIRMS.COM, likely a domain name reseller. Denis -- Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG) Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/ French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/ Sur cédérom à 1780 - On CD-ROM to 1780

Ian Goddard wrote: > Wes Groleau wrote: >> On 07-13-2011 08:41, Ian Goddard wrote: >>> Looking at the blurb on the archived site it appears that it requires >>> form templates and only one (for one specific year of US census) is >>> supplied with the free download so unless it was that particular source >>> you wanted to use it on I think you'd have been disappointed anyway. >> >> But can you make your own templates? >> >> > > Who knows? But it seems to be an academic question as the original > website now seems to be off-net. > Someone must be paying for the domain-name though -- e-mail to the CONTACT address has not yet bounced. Cheryl

Wes Groleau wrote: > On 07-13-2011 08:41, Ian Goddard wrote: >> Looking at the blurb on the archived site it appears that it requires >> form templates and only one (for one specific year of US census) is >> supplied with the free download so unless it was that particular source >> you wanted to use it on I think you'd have been disappointed anyway. > > But can you make your own templates? > > Who knows? But it seems to be an academic question as the original website now seems to be off-net. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

On 07-13-2011 08:41, Ian Goddard wrote: > Looking at the blurb on the archived site it appears that it requires > form templates and only one (for one specific year of US census) is > supplied with the free download so unless it was that particular source > you wanted to use it on I think you'd have been disappointed anyway. But can you make your own templates? -- Wes Groleau There are two types of people in the world … http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1157