Richard, I'm late to this discussion, but thought I'd leap in. Your first requirement is sometimes discussed using the terms "record-based genealogy" or "evidence-based genealogy". All current genealogical system are "person-based" or "conclusion-based." That is, you only add information to your database that you know to refer to a known person. This is how all beginners start out. It isn't 'til you're three or four or more generations back, when you find you can no longer be person-based. This happens when you reach the point that much of the data you collect is not yet obvious as to what person the data refers to. You may have to collect lots of data, and do lots of thinking and inferencing, before you can decide what is the best set of real persons to be the "best fit" for all the records you have discovered. When you reach this point in your genealogical maturity you are doing real, honest to god, historical research. The current generation of genealogical applications are simply not geared up to handle real research. The question becomes, once you reach the point in your "genealogical career" when you are doing true research, what do you do with all the record evidence before you can decide what persons it belongs to? Current genealogical systems don't have a good answer, thus much of your frustration and your first requirement. In my humble opinion genealogical programs should provide a way to codify the evidence into records that can be added to your genealogical databases independently of being added to a conclusion person. That is, our databases should support the entire "evidence layer" of data, which they don't do today, with the "conclusion layer" of data, which is all they support. I believe that the evidence should be codified into "person records" that are structurally very similar to the conclusion person records. That is, all your John Smiths should be encoded into their own "person records." I call these person records the "evidence person" records, and another name for them is "persona" records. Your software should then support a process whereby you build up "conclusion trees" from these persona records. These ideas are those that are behind the "DeadEnds" model I development more than a decade ago, and behind some of the software I have been working on. You have to add a little bit more, but by simply adding the persona layer to your applications, and a way in the user interface to construct conclusion person trees out of these persona records, you now have a genealogical system that supports true research. This is what you are begging for! These are not ideas new to me. There has been much discussion about adding true support for records and codifying information about persons into genealogical databases. The Better GEDCOM effort is in full swing now trying to decide how to do this. The OpenGen forum is also deep into thinking about this. The New Family Search tree from the LDS is based on combining persona records into person records, though in there case there is no hard and fast implication that the persona records come directly from evidence records. The term "persona" was popularized by the GenTech model, but that model is so hard to understand (because it is a fully normalized relational model, where the normalization completely obfuscates the underlying data model), that it has gone no where. Tom Wetmore

On 2011-05-16 16:09, Peter J. Seymour wrote: > On 2011-05-16 13:03, Richard Smith wrote: >> On May 16, 8:20 am, "Peter J. Seymour"<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> This set me wondering: How large do single trees get? So here is a >>> challenge for you all, What is the largest single-tree gedcom you are >>> aware of, does it consist of sensible data, and more to the point how >>> large is it (File size in bytes and number of individuals, both metrics >>> are needed please? >> >> If you google for 'BUELL001.GED' you'll find a large GEDCOM file by ..... at 150 generations it > breaks an assumed annotation limit in the Gendatam Suite reports. ..... > > Peter This amused me. Toying with providing better resilience in report annotation at high generation numbers, I encountered this unhelpful piece of numerology: Generation 149: G146 Grand Parents List size 16 individuals (out of 356811923176489970264571492362373784095686656 possible) As far as I know the number is correct. I would not be surprised if it is more than the total number of atoms in the universe. Obviously, as you go back through a binary ancestral tree, the span doubles at each generation. At the same time, on travelling back in time the total world population size dimishes. There will come a point at which the span of the tree exceeds the then world population. The "possible" number given above cannot in practice exceed the world population and for various reasons the practical limit will be somewhat smaller. A quick estimate based on a few assumptions puts the crossover date for a tree starting today at not earlier than 1700. Since a complete tree must exist, this means that conflation of ancestry links is not just a possibility, it is a necessity. One can also deduce on a probability basis that while conflation in this hypothetical tree might be unusual for the 1900s, it will be not uncommon for the 1800s and unavoidable for the 1700s. In cultures with a high degree of inter marriage it will obviously be more common than the above physical constraints dictate. Lecture over. I just thought I would share this piece of serendipity. Peter

On May 16, 5:01 pm, Nick Matthews <[email protected]> wrote: > In particular, you mention standing data; I think this is an area where > open source collaborative efforts can really be made to work. I'm sure > that anyone who has spent a few years on their family tree will have > become expert on some small areas of local history and geography, if > there was a simple way to contribute that expertise, without commercial > interests taking advantage, then I'm sure it would happen. FreeBMD and > friends are a good example of what can be done. If anyone is seriously thinking about doing this, I would suggest first taking a good look at both Open Street Map <http:// www.openstreetmap.org/> and the (British) Ordnance Survey Open Data <http://data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/>, even though their relevance may not seem immediately obvious. Open Street Map (OSM) is much more than an open source version of Google Maps. It's real power lies in its underlying dataset which is currently licensed under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 2.0 licence. That provides a very powerful, general way of storing geographical vector data. Often these are rounds, but they can also be boundaries, and OSM includes a internal administrative boundaries for a lot of countries. Some of this information can be viewed here: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=boundaries The OSM model for representing the geographical shape of areas is pretty powerful, and copes well with enclaves and exclaves (and even enclaves in exclaves). Its terminology is a bit odd because it originated through the reuse existing components, but the ideas are sound. Effectively you have areas ("boundary relations") and boundaries ("boundary ways"), and a many-to-many mapping between them with a flag on the mapping to state whether it's an inner or outer boundary. This data allows a genealogy program to place small hamlets in the correct parish, and to answer questions such as "How far away is (the nearest bit of) Dorset?" -- useful if a candidate marriage registration has just been found in an unexpected county. Another advantage to looking at OSM is that there are lots of open source tools out there for drawing pretty maps from the OSM XML. That means that once you've got the data, you can easily generate maps showing all the parishes (or other units) in a given place. Ordnance Survey Open Data (OSOD) is also openly licensed under terms that are compatible with the Creative Commons CC-BY licence. This site only contains data on the present British administrative geography, including all civil parishes (or communities in Wales), wards, districts, boroughs, unitary authorities, counties and constituencies (of various sorts) in Great Britain, and vector data indicating their boundaries. It allows you to list all the parishes in a county, or find all of the neighbouring parishes, and without you (or presumably it) having to parse the vector boundary data. It's not all that easy to drive -- it's clearly designed with developers rather than end users in mind -- but there's a huge quantity of data available. It can be accessed as RDF, either in RDF/ XML or in Turtle (a subset of Notation3 that's easier to parse), and so should be easy enough to parse and import into a database. Even though the site only contains data on the present British administrative geography, but even that poses many problems that the OS have solved. For example, it deals with data in three languages: English, Welsh, and (rather less well) Gaelic. The dataset includes multiple hierarchies: constituencies, for example, are not coterminous with counties and districts. Further, the administrative geography of Britain is very heterogeneous, more so that of any other country I'm familiar with, though I'm certain there will be more extreme examples out there if I knew where to look. A system that can cope with Britain's administrative vagaries is necessarily going to be fairly flexible. The dataset includes tens of thousands of areas which is probably large enough to give a good test suite to play with. The big thing that neither of these provides is a vocabulary for talking about changes, but doing so in a way that doesn't lose the identify of the place. Just because Hampshire was officially called the County of Southampton until 1959 doesn't mean it was a different place, and in practice both names were used before and since 1959. Nor should a small boundary change affect that. But how major does a boundary change need to be before it ceases being small? Legal continuity isn't a good criterion: for example Cornwall legally ceased to exist and recreated on 1 Apr 1974, even though Cornwall was one of the few English counties not to be affected by boundary changes on that day. There's a lot to think about in doing a good job here, but I definitely think that something like this would be hugely beneficial to genealogists and historians. The fact that getting all the data is a huge amount of work shouldn't really matter. Once a data model and interface is established, even if it needs tweaking later, people can start entering data. And with a bit of data, you can fairly easily do some seriously cool things, like generating animated maps showing the territorial evolution of an area. Perhaps gimmicky in a way, but that sort of thing can also be a good way of visualising what has happened in an area, especially somewhere as complex as modern day Germany or Belgium. I think some unique selling points like that would be enough to convince more people that it's worth adding more data. Richard

Bob Melson wrote: > <rant> > It has nothing to do with the original topic, but reading the above brought > to mind some of _my_ pet peeves, large among 'em those sites which will > recognize every browser known to man, but only if they're on a windows > and/or mac/os box. Or those who don't understand that Firefox and > Seamonkey are different branches of the same (mozilla) development tree > and piss and moan about an "unrecognized" browser (seamonkey) while > merrily serving pages to that very same browser. > > Yeah, yeah, I _know_, 'tis a windows/mac world out there and those of us > who've chosen to eschew either/both have only ourselves to blame - but, > dammit, a browser is still a browser, notwithstanding the o/s it's running > on. If the page being served will display correctly in, e.g, firefox over > there, it likely will display equally correctly in firefox over here. > > Sheesh! > > </rant> Seconded. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

Wes Groleau wrote: > On 05-18-2011 09:52, singhals wrote: >> Ian Goddard wrote: >>> [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> It's so common here I forgot about it. Many places have french names, >>>> and >>>> major places have german, english, spanish names. >>> >>> That's a common source of problems. People take requirements for >>> granted& fail to mention them and then complain that they weren't >>> provided. >>> >> >> Variation #2 of the above: people fail to mention requirements, >> misunderstand the question when asked about them, and so respond >> incorrectly, and THEN complain ... >> (viz: the suit who was asked "will the salary ever change?" and said NO, >> forgetting the company gives an annual raise ...) > > Or the requirement is "It has to provide everything the old one did, > including all the stuff we've never used but won't admit we don't need." > > "And by the way, it has to look and feel like the old one, too" > And then there's the variant that the salesman told the potential customer that it would work just like the old one when what we were working one for two existing customers was structured very differently. I decided to duck out of that one. Fortunately I ran across someone I'd worked with before on the escalator at Charing Cross.... -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

On Thursday 19 May 2011 06:27, singhals ([email protected]) opined: > Bob Melson wrote: >> <rant> >> It has nothing to do with the original topic, but reading the above >> brought to mind some of _my_ pet peeves, large among 'em those sites >> which will recognize every browser known to man, but only if they're on >> a windows >> and/or mac/os box. Or those who don't understand that Firefox and >> Seamonkey are different branches of the same (mozilla) development tree >> and piss and moan about an "unrecognized" browser (seamonkey) while >> merrily serving pages to that very same browser. >> >> Yeah, yeah, I _know_, 'tis a windows/mac world out there and those of us >> who've chosen to eschew either/both have only ourselves to blame - but, >> dammit, a browser is still a browser, notwithstanding the o/s it's >> running >> on. If the page being served will display correctly in, e.g, firefox >> over there, it likely will display equally correctly in firefox over >> here. >> >> Sheesh! >> >> </rant> > > (G) Now, Bob, chill /out/. Somebody told me, once upon a > time, how to make my computer lie about its browser and OS. > Can't say I remember the details now, but someone must. > Won't make a lot of difference, because the other side will > then grouse and complain because your OS is unsupported, but > ...? > > Cheryl Shouldn't have to do that, however. If browser-of-choice runs in both environments, then that should be sufficient. The server side software developer should be concerned with _content_ and not what o/s the client is running. Back in the day, when I wuz a contractor at MCI, the web-based product we were supporting was designed to run ONLY on windoze with IE - anything else was either an error message or a meaningless hash. Poor design, but kept a bunch of programmers employed (and lots of headaches for us sysadmins). Steamed Ol' Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes -- Thomas Paine

Bob Melson wrote: > On Wednesday 18 May 2011 11:25, singhals ([email protected]) opined: > >> Wes Groleau wrote: >>> On 05-18-2011 09:52, singhals wrote: >>>> Ian Goddard wrote: >>>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> It's so common here I forgot about it. Many places have french names, >>>>>> and >>>>>> major places have german, english, spanish names. >>>>> >>>>> That's a common source of problems. People take requirements for >>>>> granted& fail to mention them and then complain that they weren't >>>>> provided. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Variation #2 of the above: people fail to mention requirements, >>>> misunderstand the question when asked about them, and so respond >>>> incorrectly, and THEN complain ... >>>> (viz: the suit who was asked "will the salary ever change?" and said >>>> NO, forgetting the company gives an annual raise ...) >>> >>> Or the requirement is "It has to provide everything the old one did, >>> including all the stuff we've never used but won't admit we don't need." >>> >>> "And by the way, it has to look and feel like the old one, too" >>> >> >> Oh, yeah, /that/ one. (g) >> >> Cheryl > <rant> > It has nothing to do with the original topic, but reading the above brought > to mind some of _my_ pet peeves, large among 'em those sites which will > recognize every browser known to man, but only if they're on a windows > and/or mac/os box. Or those who don't understand that Firefox and > Seamonkey are different branches of the same (mozilla) development tree > and piss and moan about an "unrecognized" browser (seamonkey) while > merrily serving pages to that very same browser. > > Yeah, yeah, I _know_, 'tis a windows/mac world out there and those of us > who've chosen to eschew either/both have only ourselves to blame - but, > dammit, a browser is still a browser, notwithstanding the o/s it's running > on. If the page being served will display correctly in, e.g, firefox over > there, it likely will display equally correctly in firefox over here. > > Sheesh! > > </rant> (G) Now, Bob, chill /out/. Somebody told me, once upon a time, how to make my computer lie about its browser and OS. Can't say I remember the details now, but someone must. Won't make a lot of difference, because the other side will then grouse and complain because your OS is unsupported, but ...? Cheryl

On Wednesday 18 May 2011 11:25, singhals ([email protected]) opined: > Wes Groleau wrote: >> On 05-18-2011 09:52, singhals wrote: >>> Ian Goddard wrote: >>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It's so common here I forgot about it. Many places have french names, >>>>> and >>>>> major places have german, english, spanish names. >>>> >>>> That's a common source of problems. People take requirements for >>>> granted& fail to mention them and then complain that they weren't >>>> provided. >>>> >>> >>> Variation #2 of the above: people fail to mention requirements, >>> misunderstand the question when asked about them, and so respond >>> incorrectly, and THEN complain ... >>> (viz: the suit who was asked "will the salary ever change?" and said >>> NO, forgetting the company gives an annual raise ...) >> >> Or the requirement is "It has to provide everything the old one did, >> including all the stuff we've never used but won't admit we don't need." >> >> "And by the way, it has to look and feel like the old one, too" >> > > Oh, yeah, /that/ one. (g) > > Cheryl <rant> It has nothing to do with the original topic, but reading the above brought to mind some of _my_ pet peeves, large among 'em those sites which will recognize every browser known to man, but only if they're on a windows and/or mac/os box. Or those who don't understand that Firefox and Seamonkey are different branches of the same (mozilla) development tree and piss and moan about an "unrecognized" browser (seamonkey) while merrily serving pages to that very same browser. Yeah, yeah, I _know_, 'tis a windows/mac world out there and those of us who've chosen to eschew either/both have only ourselves to blame - but, dammit, a browser is still a browser, notwithstanding the o/s it's running on. If the page being served will display correctly in, e.g, firefox over there, it likely will display equally correctly in firefox over here. Sheesh! </rant> -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes -- Thomas Paine

I am somewhat curious about your question. You seem to be trying to come up with some kind of "quality" or "genuine-ness" metric based on the characteristics of a single tree. I would have thought most genuine researcher's databases would contain a majority of people who are all connected by some sequence of parent-child, spouse-spouse relationships (the "family tree", but mathematically probably a connected forest rather than a tree). And then a whole load of other folk, either individually, as couples or in small trees who represent people who have come up in your research but whose relationship to your family either isn't established, or you have proven them not to be related but need to hang onto their information to help you work out who's who (particularly when there are different families with the same surname living in the same place at the same time that you are forever stumbling over in your research). There will also be those pruned "wrong branches" from your own tree based on some erroneous conclusion that has now been corrected. Also people often have bits of research done for friends in their databases. People doing things like one name studies or local history will have GEDCOMs that are full of lots of disconnected individuals and small trees. I think you have to know what the GEDCOM purports to represent to know what kind of connectivity of individuals you should reasonably expect to find within it. I don't think finding large numbers of disconnected individuals or small trees in a GEDCOM file is necessarily a sign of "rubbish research". On the contrary, those people who like to build big family trees just for the sake of it will generally have a highly connected set of individuals as they will have linked someone in their own database to someone in the other database, creating an even larger connected "family tree", on the flimsiest of evidence. I think those who are overly willing to make "connections" are more dangerous from a quality perspective than those who collect a lot of data (for whatever reason) and don't connect it. Kerry

Wes Groleau wrote: > On 05-18-2011 09:52, singhals wrote: >> Ian Goddard wrote: >>> [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> It's so common here I forgot about it. Many places have french names, >>>> and >>>> major places have german, english, spanish names. >>> >>> That's a common source of problems. People take requirements for >>> granted& fail to mention them and then complain that they weren't >>> provided. >>> >> >> Variation #2 of the above: people fail to mention requirements, >> misunderstand the question when asked about them, and so respond >> incorrectly, and THEN complain ... >> (viz: the suit who was asked "will the salary ever change?" and said NO, >> forgetting the company gives an annual raise ...) > > Or the requirement is "It has to provide everything the old one did, > including all the stuff we've never used but won't admit we don't need." > > "And by the way, it has to look and feel like the old one, too" > Oh, yeah, /that/ one. (g) Cheryl

On 05-18-2011 09:52, singhals wrote: > Ian Goddard wrote: >> [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> It's so common here I forgot about it. Many places have french names, >>> and >>> major places have german, english, spanish names. >> >> That's a common source of problems. People take requirements for >> granted& fail to mention them and then complain that they weren't >> provided. >> > > Variation #2 of the above: people fail to mention requirements, > misunderstand the question when asked about them, and so respond > incorrectly, and THEN complain ... > (viz: the suit who was asked "will the salary ever change?" and said NO, > forgetting the company gives an annual raise ...) Or the requirement is "It has to provide everything the old one did, including all the stuff we've never used but won't admit we don't need." "And by the way, it has to look and feel like the old one, too" -- Wes Groleau There are two types of people in the world … http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1157

[email protected] wrote: > > It's so common here I forgot about it. Many places have french names, and > major places have german, english, spanish names. That's a common source of problems. People take requirements for granted & fail to mention them and then complain that they weren't provided. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

Ian Goddard wrote: > [email protected] wrote: >> >> It's so common here I forgot about it. Many places have french names, and >> major places have german, english, spanish names. > > That's a common source of problems. People take requirements for > granted& fail to mention them and then complain that they weren't provided. > Variation #2 of the above: people fail to mention requirements, misunderstand the question when asked about them, and so respond incorrectly, and THEN complain ... (viz: the suit who was asked "will the salary ever change?" and said NO, forgetting the company gives an annual raise ...) Cheryl

Wes Groleau wrote: > On 05-16-2011 10:57, singhals wrote: >> one of my databases has 24744 persons in a 18862080M file > > I question the "M" You could be right. Cheryl

Ian Goddard wrote: > [email protected] wrote: >> Ian Goddard wrote: >>> Nope. You end up having to make such changes because you didn't think >>> it through in the first place. >> >> Oh yes, I recognize that argument. But I've never come across a project >> that didn't have it surprises, even after having written down and >> discussed and agreed upon the requirements document. > > OTOH well planned S/W products are able to cope with a wide range of > applications. I used to be a sysadmin for a client using a particular > ERP package for warehouse management. Another site of the same company > used the same package to support a print-buying business and a hardware > service business. I don't doubt that other users of the package had > distinctly different ways of deploying it. > > %>< >>> By now it should be clear how to treat this. You recognise /in advance/ >>> that the hierarchies will be time-dependent and make provision for >>> optional start and finish dates. You also recognise that a particular >>> place may be simultaneously in different hierarchies, e.g. >>> ecclesiastical (even different ecclesiastical hierarchies, such as >>> different Anglican & RC parishes), manorial, Poor Law. You adopt a data >>> model that fits and then code to that. >> >> Sounds good, but are you british? >> I think you underestimate the complexity of it all. My family tree (my >> mother's work) goes back to around 1590. Our regions (Flanders) have been >> jostled around between the big powers for a number of times and >> reorganized again and again. The town where most of my family lives now >> (and also in the past, has even been scinded in two (part Spanish, part >> French) for a number of years. > > This is a specific example of a general requirement. It's essentially > no different from the situation that Holmfirth chapelry was split > between two parishes and that things were shuffled round in both > ecclesiastical and civil terms. Provide a /general/ framework for > constructing location hierarchies which makes provision for a split and > it makes no difference at what level the split happens. You didn't > mention whether the town has different names in different languages > which sometimes happens. It's so common here I forgot about it. Many places have french names, and major places have german, english, spanish names. Herman > Again, it's a general requirement; if you > allow for synonyms you can handle Pontefract vs Pomfret just as easily > as Koeningsberg vs Kaliningrad. > >> I think a lot of family tree researches simply give up there, it >> is way to time consuming to record it all. > > Again my area confuses more distant researchers because there's no > effective means to convey these changes. Wouldn't it be better if there > were? > -- Veel mensen danken hun goed geweten aan hun slecht geheugen. (G. Bomans) Lots of people owe their good conscience to their bad memory (G. Bomans)

On 2011-05-18 08:01, Kerry Raymond wrote: > I am somewhat curious about your question. You seem to be trying to come > up with some kind of "quality" or "genuine-ness" metric based on the > characteristics of a single tree. > > I would have thought most genuine researcher's databases would contain a > majority of people who are all connected by some sequence of > parent-child, spouse-spouse relationships (the "family tree", but > mathematically probably a connected forest rather than a tree) ...... > > Kerry > I often don't bother to distinguish between a tree and a forest. it might be viewed as either. I agree with your comments. I started out looking for some sort of "goodness" metric, but this quest has now become one of defining a set of metrics describing the characteristics of a file, for instance how densely populated is an ancestral tree. That is an example of how it can be quite tricky because there could be several such trees contained in a forest. In addition the population density might be different at different points in the tree. The overall intention is to provide an indication of how much further work there might be to do on that file. I am still looking at some of the example files suggested by others, but I expect to come back with a list of suggested metrics in a few days perhaps. Peter

On 06/03/2011 17:15, UK Traveller wrote: > "J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote in message > news:[email protected] > > On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 13:38:49 -0800, Neil Bell > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> At first we were going to see version 8 last year before Christmas, >> then it was delayed (again) for more beta testing. Well, it is now >> March, 2011 and still no version 8... >> >> Anyone have any idea if we will even get it this YEAR ? I really need >> to be able to output repoprts to Microsoft Word and we lost that >> ability in Version 7! It is SUPPOSED to be fixed in version 8.... >> >> Neil Bell > > The Master of TMG used to appear on this forum occasioanlly - but not > for awhile. > > Hugh > > See : http://www.whollygenes.com/forums201/index.php?showtopic=13170 for > the latest report from TMG. TMG v8 Public Beta is now available http://goo.gl/6GKLV

On 17/05/2011 10:19, Richard Smith wrote: > That sounds like excellent news, and I look forward to hearing more > about it in due course. Have you yet chosen a product name so that I > know what to keep an eye out for? Yes, but it's hush-hush for now! Rest assured we'll be announcing it here first when we launch (or need alpha/beta testers). John -- Maintainer of the s.g.b FAQs, at http://www.genealogy-britain.org.uk/ Tracing London names LEE, BEDFORD, CLARK, SUTTON, KEEN, SPRING, HARTLEY, WRIGHT, PETHERBRIDGE (Devonian/Cornish), MOODY (Cornish/Devonian), STEPHENS (Cornish) ** LOOK OUT, SPAM BLOCK AHEAD! ** To email me, please remove ".invalid" from the email address

On 05-16-2011 10:57, singhals wrote: > one of my databases has 24744 persons in a 18862080M file I question the "M" Nineteen terabytes? -- Wes Groleau There are two types of people in the world … http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1157

On 05-16-2011 03:20, Peter J. Seymour wrote: > What is the largest single-tree gedcom you are aware of, does it consist http://myarnolds.com > of sensible data, and more to the point how large is it (File size in yes don't know > bytes and number of individuals, both metrics are needed please? second metric on the site's welcome page -- Wes Groleau There are two types of people in the world … http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1157