Hi I have a pile of letters written during WW1 by my father and his brother and would like to be able to type them up for family distribution > I am a very slow typist and none of my children can read the older hand writing. Does any one know of a share ware program that I would be able to try? Anne

"Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:u83iq3d8vfgnddl8566tsd9hug2ihju95m@4ax.com... > If this goes any further, we may need genealogy software that allows one to > enter three or more parents - and what would a pedigree chart look like then? > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080205/ap_on_sc/embryo_research > > LONDON - British scientists say they have created human embryos containing DNA > from two women and a man in a procedure that researchers hope might be used > one day to produce embryos free of inherited diseases. > ... Very good question. However, this can also be called genetic engineering and thus there may be NO parents! I think you're getting ahead of us. How much of a DNA contribution is worthy of note?

Haines Brown wrote: > What is a "GEDCOM display"? Do you refer to the RootsWeb GEDCOM dump? Or > the display of the data itself? (which for me so far has The display of raw GEDCOM allowed by LifeLines and some other programs. A format which is meaningless to the uninitiated and close to it for the initiated in any large quantity. -- Wes Groleau Pat's Polemics = http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett

Haines Brown wrote: > Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> writes: > > >>Haines Brown wrote: >> >>>In my application (LifeLines) for example, I can readily create an event >>>record of any kind. The template is: >> >>LifeLines allows you to put into the file almost anything >>the GEDCOM spec allows, and a few things it doesn't. Most >>programs are not that flexible. For example >> >>0 @I1@ INDI >> 1 FAMC @F100@ >> 1 FAMC @F200@ >>0 @F100@ FAM >> 1 HUSB @I25@ >> 1 HUSB @I35@ >>0 @I35@ INDI >> 1 SEX F >> >>Technically this is not legal in the GEDCOM spec. >>Even in LifeLines, how do you display it on screen >>or report (GEDCOM displays don't count)? > > > Wes, I think you can see some of the reason for my not understanding the > restraints that folks have been mentioning. > > Yes, I've not worried much yet about how to display the data on screen > or print it (just getting my feet wet). The main thing has been to There's part of the reason you're not understanding. > gather and store data. There are apps that show much of the data, but > not anything that shows it all in the form of an inclusive report rather > than raw data. I'm unclear on the difference between an electronic collection of input data without linkages or context and a stack of unsorted pink message slips with Post-its. Seems to me they're both equally unorganized and useless. > > What is a "GEDCOM display"? Do you refer to the RootsWeb GEDCOM dump? Or No, he's referring to the sample >>0 @I1@ INDI >> 1 FAMC @F100@ >> 1 FAMC @F200@ >>0 @F100@ FAM >> 1 HUSB @I25@ >> 1 HUSB @I35@ >>0 @I35@ INDI >> 1 SEX F > the display of the data itself? (which for me so far has It won't suffice when you're dealing with tens of thousands of names. > sufficed). Do you mean a chart display? There are GEDCOM -> HTML > converters, but I assume they all use a fixed and limited number of > tags. > There are also dedicated Genealogy programs (e.g., PAF, Legacy, TMG, et al) that relieve you of the necessity of remembering whether it's George or June who is I4563. Define "tags" in your last sentence. "Tags" as in the GEDCOM, "tags" as in labels, "tags" as in flags, "tags" as in loose ends...? Cheryl

Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> writes: > > of change in state. The "event" in TMG apparently remains tied to static > > data. Is any kind of event allowed besides the obvious ones of birth, > > marriage and death? > > > What would you like? Don't pay too attention to my remark, which percipitated from my primary concern for historiography and the "event" in that context. In that context, it is in principle possible to escape a static view, but I'm not sure about genealogy, which to some extent is primarily concerned with data. >> No, I wasn't thinking of a heap. A heap is an array or tree structure >> that orders people according to lineage. It seems very old fashioned > > I'd call that a hierarchical file structure... or simply a tree. At > least when I took comp.sci., a heap file was just that -- an unsorted > stack of dis-similar records; one had to read the record in order to > even figure out what the data represented. Interesting. We are appparently speaking of the same thing. When I took my Data Structure course, we encounted the "heap" as (quote from my textbook). A heap is a binary tree with these characteristics: * It's complete. This means it is completely filled in... * It's (usually) implemented as an array. ... * Each node in a heap satisfies a heap condition, which states that the node's key is larger than (or equal to) the keys of its children. In my notes on databases, I have: A heap is a specialized tree-based data structure that satisfies the heap property: if B is a child node of A, then key(A) ≥ key(B). As you point out, there is no suggestion that record B has any similarity to record A here. The only condition is that the key value for record A must be at least as great as the value of the key of record B. This struck me as somewhat descriptive of a family hierarchy in that there are generations, especially today when any biological relation of families or generations is unclear, and even surnames can be only loosely related to biological descent. For example, only one of my 28 grandchildren and 5 great-grandchildren are actually my biological descendents because I live in a culture in which "family" has little to do with biology and more to do with a political decision (much like "tribe" used to be). And yet there seem to be clear generational demarcations (as long as we can forget the etymological meaning of "generation"). So I have to take back my comment about heap tree being suited to lineage. It may better suit social relations today that are not so lineage-based. >> Incidentally, what kind of data structure is used in TMG? Do all >> genealogical applications use the same data structure? >> > TMG is built upon Visual FoxPro tables. Very many of them -- > approximately 29 separate tables. Interesting; I remember FoxPro from back in the 90s. Is Microsoft dropping support for it because VFP runs under wine? How will that affect TMG? It sounds like it is a relational database that has a table interface. Is that so? I assume it is more than spreadsheets. > None of the genealogy programs I'm familiar with can "modify" > data /in/ a raw GEDCOM. They all perform batch loads into a database > schema -- where data is not a sequential text format -- manipulate the > data in that format, store the data in that database, etc. OK, as I suspected. LifeLines does this as well, although it looks as though one were modifying raw GEDCOM. -- Haines Brown, KB1GRM

Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> writes: > Haines Brown wrote: >> In my application (LifeLines) for example, I can readily create an event >> record of any kind. The template is: > > LifeLines allows you to put into the file almost anything > the GEDCOM spec allows, and a few things it doesn't. Most > programs are not that flexible. For example > > 0 @I1@ INDI > 1 FAMC @F100@ > 1 FAMC @F200@ > 0 @F100@ FAM > 1 HUSB @I25@ > 1 HUSB @I35@ > 0 @I35@ INDI > 1 SEX F > > Technically this is not legal in the GEDCOM spec. > Even in LifeLines, how do you display it on screen > or report (GEDCOM displays don't count)? Wes, I think you can see some of the reason for my not understanding the restraints that folks have been mentioning. Yes, I've not worried much yet about how to display the data on screen or print it (just getting my feet wet). The main thing has been to gather and store data. There are apps that show much of the data, but not anything that shows it all in the form of an inclusive report rather than raw data. What is a "GEDCOM display"? Do you refer to the RootsWeb GEDCOM dump? Or the display of the data itself? (which for me so far has sufficed). Do you mean a chart display? There are GEDCOM -> HTML converters, but I assume they all use a fixed and limited number of tags. -- Haines Brown, KB1GRM

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote: > On a related topic, several genealogy programs use the GEDCOM structure > as their input and output media. I wonder if the keep the data > unaltered for processing or if they convert it to a different internal > structure for processing. If the latter, I wonder what those structures > are? Each is different, and none that I know of use GEDCOM internally. Even LifeLines adds binary tree indexing bytes to the GEDCOM. My own (which is not published and can do almost nothing) stores the GEDCOM level zero records unmodified, but it does split them from each other and create several indexes to make them accessible. -- Wes Groleau There are more Baroque musicians than any other kind.

Haines Brown wrote: > In my application (LifeLines) for example, I can readily create an event > record of any kind. The template is: LifeLines allows you to put into the file almost anything the GEDCOM spec allows, and a few things it doesn't. Most programs are not that flexible. For example 0 @I1@ INDI 1 FAMC @F100@ 1 FAMC @F200@ 0 @F100@ FAM 1 HUSB @I25@ 1 HUSB @I35@ 0 @I35@ INDI 1 SEX F Technically this is not legal in the GEDCOM spec. Even in LifeLines, how do you display it on screen or report (GEDCOM displays don't count)? -- Wes Groleau A UNIX signature isn't a return address, it's the ASCII equivalent of a black velvet clown painting. It's a rectangle of carets surrounding a quote from a literary giant of weeniedom like Heinlein or Dr. Who. -- Chris Maeda Ha, ha, Dr. ..... Who's Chris Maeda? -- Wes Groleau

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 22:04:41 +0100, Hugh Watkins <hugh.watkins@gmail.com> wrote: >Steve Hayes wrote: >> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:11:12 -0500, Haines Brown >> <brownh@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote: >> >>> A very interesting thread. I hope no one minds if a non-genealogist >>> jumps in with questions. >>> >>> My sense of the distinction of a relation-based and an event based >>> structure is clear to me only in the abstract, but not in concrete >>> terms. Would someone be willing to offer a simple example of each to >>> help make the distinction clearer? >> >> I've given this a different subject line because it is a different thread. >> >> I've long felt a need for event-based software that would take a different >> approach to ordinary lineage-linked genealogy software and take a different >> approach. It woudl be useful for family history research rather than pure >> genealogy, and for other kind of historical research as well. >> >> I've even developed a sort of data model, which I've semi-implemented in >> creating a database to illustrate it. >> >> Let me try to give a concrete illustration of the difference. >> >> Say you are writing a biography of a person, and you want software to help >> you in your research. >> >> In a hypothetical event-based program you would enter people who impinged on >> the life of your subject as you do with genealogy software. Some would be >> genealogically related and some not. >> >> The birth event, for example, would have your subject's birth, with parents >> (obviously), but others like midwives, obstetricians and so on also linked. >> >> Twenty-one years later there might be a 21st birthday party, and you would >> have that as an event, and a description of the event, and then link people in >> your database to the event -- friends and relatives who attended. >> >> After entering a lot of events in the subject's life, you could create a >> chronology of the events, and of the people associated with your subject at >> each stage - parents, friends, teachers, classmates, bosses, and so on. If you >> were doing a biography, you could include in notes on various people their >> recollections of the subject, and the subjects recollections of them. >> >> In this hypothetical program, it should be possibly to import family relations >> (via GEDCOM) from lineage-linked software, but also from address books etc. >> >> Such software could be used for other purposes. >> >> Onme of the things I do research on is African Independent churches. I have >> three different databases or datasets -- churches, leaders and events. It >> would be useful to be able to link them in a relational database, but I don't >> have the skill to design such a database. Also, as software goes obsolete one >> would spend more time on redesigning it than entering and manipulating data, >> so you would never get any reseach done because you would always be tinkering >> with the tools. I once tried to do it with Paradox, but now everyone uses >> Access, and it would have to be rewritten from scratch, and I've never found >> books on Access that can tell me what I used to know about Paradox. >> >> So I lumber along using an old DOS program called Inmagic, which serves my >> purpose. >> >> I'm playing with a Windows program called askSam (I also continue to use the >> DOS version) which I use for entering raw genealogical data from different >> sources and material for other research projects. These are useful research >> tools, but an event-based relational program would be a useful addition. >> > >Custodian 3 is used by one-namers I looked at Custodian 2, and it seemed useful for managing sources, less useful for managing and linking information. There is also Clooz, but that that is also not quite what I'm thinking of. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Steve Hayes wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:11:12 -0500, Haines Brown > <brownh@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote: > >> A very interesting thread. I hope no one minds if a non-genealogist >> jumps in with questions. >> >> My sense of the distinction of a relation-based and an event based >> structure is clear to me only in the abstract, but not in concrete >> terms. Would someone be willing to offer a simple example of each to >> help make the distinction clearer? > > I've given this a different subject line because it is a different thread. > > I've long felt a need for event-based software that would take a different > approach to ordinary lineage-linked genealogy software and take a different > approach. It woudl be useful for family history research rather than pure > genealogy, and for other kind of historical research as well. > > I've even developed a sort of data model, which I've semi-implemented in > creating a database to illustrate it. > > Let me try to give a concrete illustration of the difference. > > Say you are writing a biography of a person, and you want software to help > you in your research. > > In a hypothetical event-based program you would enter people who impinged on > the life of your subject as you do with genealogy software. Some would be > genealogically related and some not. > > The birth event, for example, would have your subject's birth, with parents > (obviously), but others like midwives, obstetricians and so on also linked. > > Twenty-one years later there might be a 21st birthday party, and you would > have that as an event, and a description of the event, and then link people in > your database to the event -- friends and relatives who attended. > > After entering a lot of events in the subject's life, you could create a > chronology of the events, and of the people associated with your subject at > each stage - parents, friends, teachers, classmates, bosses, and so on. If you > were doing a biography, you could include in notes on various people their > recollections of the subject, and the subjects recollections of them. > > In this hypothetical program, it should be possibly to import family relations > (via GEDCOM) from lineage-linked software, but also from address books etc. > > Such software could be used for other purposes. > > Onme of the things I do research on is African Independent churches. I have > three different databases or datasets -- churches, leaders and events. It > would be useful to be able to link them in a relational database, but I don't > have the skill to design such a database. Also, as software goes obsolete one > would spend more time on redesigning it than entering and manipulating data, > so you would never get any reseach done because you would always be tinkering > with the tools. I once tried to do it with Paradox, but now everyone uses > Access, and it would have to be rewritten from scratch, and I've never found > books on Access that can tell me what I used to know about Paradox. > > So I lumber along using an old DOS program called Inmagic, which serves my > purpose. > > I'm playing with a Windows program called askSam (I also continue to use the > DOS version) which I use for entering raw genealogical data from different > sources and material for other research projects. These are useful research > tools, but an event-based relational program would be a useful addition. > Custodian 3 is used by one-namers Hugh W -- For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/ http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote: > In message of 3 Feb, Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > <snip> > >> But do you have the same meaning I associate with "flat file", or >> could you be meaning a "heap file". To me, a "flat file" is one in which >> all records share the same structural layout, whereas a "heap file", >> while record oriented, does not mandate each record looks similar to the >> previous or next. GEDCOM files can be considered a form of flat file if >> you look at it from the view of >> >> data-level data-key associated data values >> >> where data-key identifies what type of data follows on the line. > > This is completely in contrast to the meaning of 'flat file' when I was > working with mainframe data managers some fifteen years ago. Then a > flat file was one with no structure like GEDCOM and which could be read > easily by a text editor. A relational database was constructed from flat > files, each of which was ported into a suitably defined table; though > this required that each column in the flat file was used for a defined > data type only. Thus comma separated variable (CSV) and tab separated > variable (TSV) files are both flat files. > > GEDCOM on the other hand needs an extensive program to disentangle it > and to communicate the data to a casual reader. The fact that you can > read GEDCOM in a text editor, though, does not make it into a flat file. > > On a related topic, several genealogy programs use the GEDCOM structure > as their input and output media. I wonder if the keep the data > unaltered for processing or if they convert it to a different internal > structure for processing. If the latter, I wonder what those structures > are? > try reading an FTM file with a text editor Hugh W

In message of 3 Feb, Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> wrote: <snip> > But do you have the same meaning I associate with "flat file", or > could you be meaning a "heap file". To me, a "flat file" is one in which > all records share the same structural layout, whereas a "heap file", > while record oriented, does not mandate each record looks similar to the > previous or next. GEDCOM files can be considered a form of flat file if > you look at it from the view of > > data-level data-key associated data values > > where data-key identifies what type of data follows on the line. This is completely in contrast to the meaning of 'flat file' when I was working with mainframe data managers some fifteen years ago. Then a flat file was one with no structure like GEDCOM and which could be read easily by a text editor. A relational database was constructed from flat files, each of which was ported into a suitably defined table; though this required that each column in the flat file was used for a defined data type only. Thus comma separated variable (CSV) and tab separated variable (TSV) files are both flat files. GEDCOM on the other hand needs an extensive program to disentangle it and to communicate the data to a casual reader. The fact that you can read GEDCOM in a text editor, though, does not make it into a flat file. On a related topic, several genealogy programs use the GEDCOM structure as their input and output media. I wonder if the keep the data unaltered for processing or if they convert it to a different internal structure for processing. If the latter, I wonder what those structures are? -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:32:49 -0500, Haines Brown > <brownh@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> declaimed the following in > soc.genealogy.computing: > > > >>Wes, sorry to be so slow about this. When there is a father-child >>relation (in any database), aren't we always identifying specific >>persons? That is, child is Child A because we always uniquely >>distinguished that child from others. Now, Child A has a father, which >>we also always specifally identify as Father A. So if we trace back from >>child to parent, it is always from Child A to Father A. Are we not >>always identifying specific people? >> > > I believe the hypothesis is one grandchild; two people who could be > the father, but no evidence is available to isolate to one of the two. > All we know is that one of the two (Father A1 or Father A2) IS the > father. > > Most genealogy programs have no way to handle this in a way that can > be navigated directly. One has to attach the child to one or the other > father, and can only record the ambiguity using some analyst's text note > of the form "The father is not fully identified at this time, person XXX > might be the real father". > > The better event-based systems would permit adding a secondary > "father" relationship; in this way, both possible fathers are directly > linked in the database. For report purposes, one would have to be > identified as "primary", but no "text note" is needed to explain the > ambiguity on screen. Most genie programs these days allow for "alternate parents" ... but bottom line remains that once you've given someone 4 potential sets of parents, only one set at a time can be displayed on screen. And if you want to print it off, you have to PICK which set of parents of you want. That involves a "text note" to explain why you picked who you did. Cheryl

Aha, thanks Dennis for the clarification! So the issue is that the child-father relationship might in fact be multiple or ambivalent. If a genealogy program forces a complex reality into a Procrustrian Bed of everyone having but one father, it obviously fails to capture the complexity of real life. One source of my confusion is that I don't seem to have that problem with my own genealogical application. Are the applications mentioned in this thread for some reason made more restrictive? In my application (LifeLines) for example, I can readily create an event record of any kind. The template is: 0 EVEN 1 REFN 1 DATE 1 PLAC 1 INDI 2 NAME 2 ROLE 1 SOUR I can also create user-defined records that I can name almost any way I want. Here is the template, where XXXX can be almost anything: 0 XXXX 1 REFN I can form any kind of social relation. A RELA could be, for example, god-father, biological father, second father, etc. Template for this: 0 INDI 1 NAME 1 ASSO 2 RELA I can have a family record with two fathers, for example, or a person can be a child in more than one family. There can be same-sex parents and adoptive relations. Is this difficult in other applications? -- Haines Brown, KB1GRM

Roots magic allows getting to most if not all of the flexibility. It supports multiple parents for example by permitting multiple fam records for an individual. I use it for adoptions primarily and that is supported fine. Dale Wes Groleau wrote: > Ian Goddard wrote: >> Does anyone know of a software package which offers that flexibility? ? > > For all its flaws, GEDCOM is still more flexible than > most of the software I've tried. > -- _ _ Dale DePriest /`) _ // http://users.cwnet.com/dalede o/_/ (_(_X_(` For GPS and GPS/PDAs

Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> writes: > On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 13:58:29 GMT, Haines Brown > <brownh@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> declaimed the following in > soc.genealogy.computing: > >> Obviously I was confused by TMG's proprietary meanings. Data entry >> seems to define a steady state, rather than event in the sense we >> normally use the word. The term "role" refers to a functional >> relation, but for it to generate an event it must be a causal >> relation. GEDCOM includes functional relations, but not >> event-generating causal relations. >> > Does a "bride" (role) "cause" a marriage (UFT: event; TMG: tag)? > <G> > > Events/Tags document that <something> took place, > principles/witnesses (generic terms, roles may be specified for each) > identify the individuals associated with that <something> and perhaps > how they participated (<something> without principles is /not/ -- a > marriage with no bride or groom is /not/). OK, I understand. The event tag does not reference the cause of a change in state but merely provides data associated with one of several kinds of change in state. The "event" in TMG apparently remains tied to static data. Is any kind of event allowed besides the obvious ones of birth, marriage and death? > But do you have the same meaning I associate with "flat file", > or could you be meaning a "heap file". No, I wasn't thinking of a heap. A heap is an array or tree structure that orders people according to lineage. It seems very old fashioned (feudal), for there has been a major shift in culture in modern times, starting with the Enlightenment notion of the autonomous individual, the rational/optimal decision-maker, the social atom. That presumption (arguably) is not realistic either. The percentage of women who understandably decide to become mothers without the involvement of a male suggests that the old lineage notion of society is on its last legs. However, we are in fact social beings, and so must be represented that way. The practical problems being discussed in this thread appear to suggest that lineages no longer accurately represent peoples' actual social existence and are a feudal carry-over. My getting hung up on the event (as causal process, not as data change)/data dichotomy was only some abstract speculation about how better to represent society these days. I was way out on a philosophical limb and apologize for indulging myself at your expense. Incidentally, what kind of data structure is used in TMG? Do all genealogical applications use the same data structure? >> If so, then how do we represent this unity of quite different things? >> What comes immediately to mind is an object-oriented >> database. "Objects" have both a state and a behavior. In terms of a >> programming language, the former is called a "field" and the latter a >> "method". We could combine an object-oriented language such as Java >> with a way to store data, such as XML. >> > XML is a lousy way to store data -- it was optimized for data > transfer between programs, but practically every program that has to > modify XML data essentially has to read the entire file into some > format, navigate that format to find the node to be changed, then > write the data back out as XML... My comment was only speculative, trying to define a philosophical framework, not meant as a recommendation ;-). But as for the practicality issue, I modify XML data every day without reading the file into some other format. I create, navigate and modify XML files directly. While my situation is hardly typical, is not the procedure to which you object in effect what applications such as TMG actually do to enable you to modify a GEDCOM file? I'm in general ignorant of genealogical applications, but typically don't they import and export GEDCOM to and from a database designed to facilitate operations such as removal and insertion, where GEDCOM is an open format for the exchange of data rather than its manipulation? -- Haines Brown, KB1GRM

Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:32:49 -0500, Haines Brown > <brownh@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> declaimed the following in > soc.genealogy.computing: > > >> Wes, sorry to be so slow about this. When there is a father-child >> relation (in any database), aren't we always identifying specific >> persons? That is, child is Child A because we always uniquely >> distinguished that child from others. Now, Child A has a father, which >> we also always specifally identify as Father A. So if we trace back from >> child to parent, it is always from Child A to Father A. Are we not >> always identifying specific people? >> > I believe the hypothesis is one grandchild; two people who could be > the father, but no evidence is available to isolate to one of the two. > All we know is that one of the two (Father A1 or Father A2) IS the > father. > > Most genealogy programs have no way to handle this in a way that can > be navigated directly. One has to attach the child to one or the other > father, and can only record the ambiguity using some analyst's text note > of the form "The father is not fully identified at this time, person XXX > might be the real father". > > The better event-based systems would permit adding a secondary > "father" relationship; in this way, both possible fathers are directly > linked in the database. For report purposes, one would have to be > identified as "primary", but no "text note" is needed to explain the > ambiguity on screen. FTM 16 manages this Menu >>> People >> Other Parents drop down menu for relationship natural step unknown family member so two fathers with unknown for type of relationship Hugh W

Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> writes: > Haines Brown wrote: >> relation. True, but is that the issue? Can't I convert the >> grandfather-grandchild relation into a series of two father-child >> relations, each of which does have existence in genealogical format? > > Yes, but if the intermediate father is potentially one of > two or more in your database, what then? Wes, sorry to be so slow about this. When there is a father-child relation (in any database), aren't we always identifying specific persons? That is, child is Child A because we always uniquely distinguished that child from others. Now, Child A has a father, which we also always specifally identify as Father A. So if we trace back from child to parent, it is always from Child A to Father A. Are we not always identifying specific people? Your example of ambiguity, if I recall, involved children having the same name and other common identifiers. Suppose we have two people with the same name and share all the features that are used to distinguish that child from others. Despite all that similarity, when the child is assigned a record in the database, the fact that there may be another record that is entirely similar should be irrelevant, for the record is somehow indexed uniquely. For example, in GEDCOM, each INDI is assigned a number automatically, and so two identical records can't be mixed up (or so it seems to me). -- Haines Brown, KB1GRM

Haines Brown wrote: > I'm not sure I understand your point. I can state in English (a NOTE) > that person A is the grandchild of person B. On the other hand, you seem > to be pointing out that there's no genealogical format to express that Not in GEDCOM. > relation. True, but is that the issue? Can't I convert the > grandfather-grandchild relation into a series of two father-child > relations, each of which does have existence in genealogical format? Yes, but if the intermediate father is potentially one of two or more in your database, what then? -- Wes Groleau Free speech has its limits http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=99

singhals <singhals@erols.com> writes: >> Of course a human-radable NOTE could say, "This Charles is grandson of >> Andy". But that fact also strikes me as being machine-readable from the >> presence of the F4 link. That is, the link to n @<XREF:FAM>@ FAM will >> take me to the element in FAM, +1 HUSB @<XREF:INDI>@ {0:1}, and this >> to n @<XREF:INDI>@ INDI {1:1}, and in turn to +1 >> <<CHILD_TO_FAMILY_LINK>> {0:M}, which leads to n @<XREF:FAM>@ FAM and >> thence to the @<XREF:INDI>@ INDI {1:1}, for Andy. Or what am I missing >> here? >> > > > Have you EVER heard the phrase "KISS it." ?? There is no need to do a > Rube Goldberg to circumnavigate the storage-structure of HOOD, Robin. Well, yes, of course. I was only a set of links that I assumed could be pursued by a machine, not trying to suggest it was either simple or easy. I merely tried to infer from the GEDCOM standard that a machine could ascerain the relationships, not that the way to do it was ideal. I'm still not sure of the answer to the question. Wes (understandably) did not understand it; you don't explicitly say "no". > The base problem is -- "grandchild" and "nephew" are NOT terms > recognized by any genealogical format, paper or digital/ No one says > the relationships don't exist, it's just that there has NEVER been a > uniform of of recording that, short of "He is a nephew of ..." or "She > is named as a grandchild in the will of ..." I'm not sure I understand your point. I can state in English (a NOTE) that person A is the grandchild of person B. On the other hand, you seem to be pointing out that there's no genealogical format to express that relation. True, but is that the issue? Can't I convert the grandfather-grandchild relation into a series of two father-child relations, each of which does have existence in genealogical format? That is, the machine knows that the father of the father of person A is the grandfather of person A. True, this relation must be calculated (inferred), but what is wrong with that? What is the difference between the phrases "parent's father" and "grandfather"? > Many of us create > pseudo-persons as the link: I have a known grandchild but no way to > determine which of 4 men are the father? I give the grandparents an > UNKNOWN child of UNKNOWN sex, and that UNKNOWN person had Known > Grandchild. This has the dubious advantage of being both right and > wrong simultaneously, AND of transferring successfully and > successfully communicating the relationship in printed, verbal, > format. Understood, but I don't think it addresses the question I raised. > Now, those event-linked databases we've covered in this group DO allow > you to link the named heirs to the WILL, not to the Testator, and > allow that link to be machine-readable, but I doubt VERY seriously > that the base relationship can be successfully moved out of an > event-linked system into a lineage-linked system. PAGING: Bob Velke?? Here you are using "event" in the TMG sense, not as a change of state. In your brief scenario, we have a testator, a document and an heir. These are three things; that there is an action is only inferred (in fact, they can exist prior to the testator's death, which puts these "things" into motion to create an event). Correct me if I'm wrong, but "event-link" sounds like nothing more than a formal relationship between a person and a thing in contrast to one between persons. If so, I don't understand the difference between it and a hierarchy of GEDCOM tags: INDI DEAT SOUR . For example, if I have an INDI record that contains a SOUR line, am I not creatng a relation between that INDI and a source tied to him? If in that INDI record I have a BIRT line, am I not linking that person to an event (change in the person's state)? -- Haines Brown, KB1GRM