Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> writes: > Wes Groleau wrote: >> After the above, I haven't a clue what you're getting, >> much less what you're missing. > > And I don't say that to insult--I genuinely > could not understand what you wrote. Thank you, Wes. I didn't take your comment negatively. I didn't reply because your comment is forcing me to go back and restudy the issue, and then perhaps I can convey my question more clearly. -- Haines Brown, KB1GRM

Wes Groleau wrote: > After the above, I haven't a clue what you're getting, > much less what you're missing. And I don't say that to insult--I genuinely could not understand what you wrote. -- Wes Groleau Change is inevitable. We need to learn that "inevitable" is neither a synonym for "good" nor for "bad." -- WWG

Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> writes: > On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:24:12 -0500, Haines Brown > <brownh@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> declaimed the following in > soc.genealogy.computing: >> A "relationship event" seems to conflate the categories. An "event" >> (in the sciences, anyway) refers to a change of state. Yet the >> child-mother relation is the _result_ of a birth event, but in itself >> does not refer to a change of state. Also, who are the principles in >> the case of a person's death? To presume that the death was witnessed >> seems unwarranted. >> > I'm an old Ultimate Family Tree user, where the data entries > were called "events", and the parents were roles in the birth event > (three common roles: child [the person whose birth is recorded in the > event], father, mother.. Could also add midwives, doctor, etc.) > > TMG documentation refers to the data entry as a "tag"... So > birth is a tag, relationship is a tag, death is a tag... 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. Allow me (who is profoundly ignorant) to speculate. There seems to be something we might call states (data as it applies to an individual and also formal relationships among individuals as in a family). Such data can be stored readily in a flat file. On the other hand, there are also events (in the sense of changes of state), which are the effect of a causal rather than a formal relation of individuals, which therefore can't be represented in a flat file. These two contradictory aspects are interdependent. An event changes the data, while the data constrains event generation. 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. Being embarrassed by this amateur speculation in such august company, let me instead turn it into a question. There's a lot of discussion of XML in genealogy, but my impression it is presumed to be a flat file as a potential substitute for GEDCOM. However, are object-oriented databases or languages at all used or even discussed in genealogy? -- Haines Brown, KB1GRM

Haines Brown wrote: > Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> writes: > > >>Haines Brown wrote: >> >>>A crime is socially defined (Robinson Crusoe could not commit a crime), >>>but the act is individual. Hence we are back to the notion that >> >>What happened happened. > > >>And we might agree or disagree on whether it happened, but if we >>disagree, at least one of us will be wrong. > > > Guess again: I agree! But in search of an example, I find it hard to > find something that Crusoe could do that was criminal (there are no laws > to break; no one else to take offense). So let's have him commit an > abstract hypothetical crime. Well, he did it; what happened, > happened. But what makes that act criminal? Only society. I assume that > all crimes are transgressions against social norms. > > >>>I respond, not to answer your question, but to get a better >>>understanding of the issue. This David would have a GEDCOM entry like >>>this: >>> >>> n @<XREF:FAM>@ FAM >>> >>>For example, >>> >>> 0 @F4@ FAM >>> >>>So couldn't Charles I (son of Andy) possibly be F4, while Charles II >>>(son of Bob) is F5? So a David with "0 @F4@ FAM" would umambiguously be >>>the son of Charles I. What am I misunderstanding? >> >>First, 0 @<XREF:FAM>@ FAM is the first line of a record about a family, >>not about a person. > > > But Charles would then be linked to family of Urfather Andy, not to > family of Urfather Bob. I thought the issue was to know whether this > Charles was grandson of Andy or of Bob. > > >>Now as to what I _think_ you meant. The question concerned how you >>would unambiguously show that you can NOT unambiguously tell who he >>is the son of, in the computer-parseable structure as opposed to >>a human-readable NOTE. > > > 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. 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 ..." 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. 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?? Cheryl

Michael Poole wrote: > In message <47a33710$0$22806$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Gene Y. > <please.ask@?.?.invalid> writes >> Go to; >> http://www.paologios.com/ >> and download >> PDF Splitter And Merger v1.12 - Executable Zipped > > Many thanks for this suggestion which does indeed meet my requirements. > > I had already rejected "printing to PDF" as I found it could not handle > whole-page image files as produced by Google Books. > > Of course Hugh Watkins suggestion "buy Adobe Acrobat full version" > would probably also work - but it violates my explicit request for a > solution which is "not involving procurement of expensive new software". "if you pay peanuts expect to employ monkeys" or use many hours finding a work around anyway your poverty is not a genealogical topic try asking on the appropriate comp.sys.* group Hugh W

Haines Brown wrote: > But Charles would then be linked to family of Urfather Andy, not to > family of Urfather Bob. I thought the issue was to know whether this > Charles was grandson of Andy or of Bob. > > 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? After the above, I haven't a clue what you're getting, much less what you're missing. -- Wes Groleau Words of the Wild Wes(t) = http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW

Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> writes: > Haines Brown wrote: >> A crime is socially defined (Robinson Crusoe could not commit a crime), >> but the act is individual. Hence we are back to the notion that > > What happened happened. > And we might agree or disagree on whether it happened, but if we > disagree, at least one of us will be wrong. Guess again: I agree! But in search of an example, I find it hard to find something that Crusoe could do that was criminal (there are no laws to break; no one else to take offense). So let's have him commit an abstract hypothetical crime. Well, he did it; what happened, happened. But what makes that act criminal? Only society. I assume that all crimes are transgressions against social norms. >> I respond, not to answer your question, but to get a better >> understanding of the issue. This David would have a GEDCOM entry like >> this: >> >> n @<XREF:FAM>@ FAM >> >> For example, >> >> 0 @F4@ FAM >> >> So couldn't Charles I (son of Andy) possibly be F4, while Charles II >> (son of Bob) is F5? So a David with "0 @F4@ FAM" would umambiguously be >> the son of Charles I. What am I misunderstanding? > > First, 0 @<XREF:FAM>@ FAM is the first line of a record about a family, > not about a person. But Charles would then be linked to family of Urfather Andy, not to family of Urfather Bob. I thought the issue was to know whether this Charles was grandson of Andy or of Bob. > Now as to what I _think_ you meant. The question concerned how you > would unambiguously show that you can NOT unambiguously tell who he > is the son of, in the computer-parseable structure as opposed to > a human-readable NOTE. 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? -- Haines Brown, KB1GRM

Haines Brown wrote: > A crime is socially defined (Robinson Crusoe could not commit a crime), > but the act is individual. Hence we are back to the notion that What happened happened. What is is. We might agree (since this is Usenet, more likely we'll disagree) on what words to use to describe it, but changing those words will NOT change what happened or what is. And we might agree or disagree on whether it happened, but if we disagree, at least one of us will be wrong. > I respond, not to answer your question, but to get a better > understanding of the issue. This David would have a GEDCOM entry like > this: > > n @<XREF:FAM>@ FAM > > For example, > > 0 @F4@ FAM > > So couldn't Charles I (son of Andy) possibly be F4, while Charles II > (son of Bob) is F5? So a David with "0 @F4@ FAM" would umambiguously be > the son of Charles I. What am I misunderstanding? First, 0 @<XREF:FAM>@ FAM is the first line of a record about a family, not about a person. Now as to what I _think_ you meant. The question concerned how you would unambiguously show that you can NOT unambiguously tell who he is the son of, in the computer-parseable structure as opposed to a human-readable NOTE. -- Wes Groleau http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/ For lovers of language and learning

In message <47a33710$0$22806$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Gene Y. <please.ask@?.?.invalid> writes >Go to; >http://www.paologios.com/ >and download >PDF Splitter And Merger v1.12 - Executable Zipped Many thanks for this suggestion which does indeed meet my requirements. I had already rejected "printing to PDF" as I found it could not handle whole-page image files as produced by Google Books. Of course Hugh Watkins suggestion "buy Adobe Acrobat full version" would probably also work - but it violates my explicit request for a solution which is "not involving procurement of expensive new software". -- Michael Poole 2 Highlands Glade, Manston Ramsgate, Kent CT12 5GS Tel: 01843 822008

In article <60gthbF1r1gffU1@mid.individual.net>, Hugh Watkins <hugh.watkins@gmail.com> writes: > Michael Poole wrote: >> I want to select individual articles from a Google Book which consists >> of (say) 500 pages and store them as separate PDF files. Typical article >> length is 6-20 pages. >> >> The book out of copyright and is available as full text with scanned >> pages as images, the whole being in PDF format. I can laboriously >> download the whole file and then save to a PDF file on my PC (Windows >> XP). I can then open the saved file with Adobe Reader v8 and select >> pages one at a time and cut and paste them into pages of an Open Office >> word processor file. >> >> There does not seem in Adobe Reader to be a way to select multiple pages >> in one go, either with a view to copying, or with a view to deleting. >> >> Has anyone else faced this problem and come up with a simple solution >> not involving procurement of expensive new software? > > > try purchasing the full version of Adobe Acrobat > > Hugh W I can't say much about Acrobat Reader (acroread) 8, but in acroread 7 what you want to do is quite simple. You first have to know which pages you want to print; because of all the front material, it's unlikely that the page numbers will match the PDF document's numbering, so you have to determine which pages from the electronic document you want to print. Next, click on "File->Print" in the menu bar. On the detail page that appears you have the option to print the whole document or a range of pages. Plus the option to print to a file. Enter the values and select the options you want, click on "OK" and you _should_ be good to go. HTH Slippery Ol' Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason so few engage in it. -- Henry Ford

Michael Poole wrote: > I want to select individual articles from a Google Book which consists > of (say) 500 pages and store them as separate PDF files. Typical article > length is 6-20 pages. > > The book out of copyright and is available as full text with scanned > pages as images, the whole being in PDF format. I can laboriously > download the whole file and then save to a PDF file on my PC (Windows > XP). I can then open the saved file with Adobe Reader v8 and select > pages one at a time and cut and paste them into pages of an Open Office > word processor file. > > There does not seem in Adobe Reader to be a way to select multiple pages > in one go, either with a view to copying, or with a view to deleting. > > Has anyone else faced this problem and come up with a simple solution > not involving procurement of expensive new software? try purchasing the full version of Adobe Acrobat Hugh W

My head's spinning ;-( First, Cheryl pointed out that I should have said lineage-linked vs event-linked, rather than relation-based vs event based. If she was only insisting that I use conventional terminology, I would understand and accept the correction. But she may imply that these are not synomyms, but different concepts. If so, I'm still in the dark, such as the difference between a lineage link and a relation. Now Dennis says makes quite clear the difference between lineage-link and event-link database. Or so I thought until: > The alternative, used by TMG, is to create relationship events -- > one event for father relationship, one for mother relationship. In TMG, > every event ("tag") has room for two "principles", all the "other > people" are added into a witness list in the event. A "relationship event" seems to conflate the categories. An "event" (in the sciences, anyway) refers to a change of state. Yet the child-mother relation is the _result_ of a birth event, but in itself does not refer to a change of state. Also, who are the principles in the case of a person's death? To presume that the death was witnessed seems unwarranted. At some earlier point in this thread, there was a suggestion that event-link relates genealogy to historiography. I don't think that stands up well as a valid generalization. While there is a particular branch of history (narrative) that strings events together, that approach is rather in a shadow these days. Historians often lay emphasis on relations (such as class relations). There's also a possibility of representing history in terms of process in which there is no "state", but instead evenescent structures that constrain causal potencies, which are primary. All I'm suggesting is that I don't believe one can assume that historiography is simply or always based on events. -- Haines Brown, KB1GRM

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 04:15:45 +0200, Steve Hayes <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> 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. > >-- >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 That sounds good for a biography, autobiography or family history but is it genealogy except periphally? I am not being critical. Hugh

In message of 1 Feb, Michael Poole <mdp@michaelpoole.org.uk> wrote: > I want to select individual articles from a Google Book which consists > of (say) 500 pages and store them as separate PDF files. Typical article > length is 6-20 pages. > > The book out of copyright and is available as full text with scanned > pages as images, the whole being in PDF format. I can laboriously > download the whole file and then save to a PDF file on my PC (Windows > XP). I can then open the saved file with Adobe Reader v8 and select > pages one at a time and cut and paste them into pages of an Open Office > word processor file. > > There does not seem in Adobe Reader to be a way to select multiple pages > in one go, either with a view to copying, or with a view to deleting. > > Has anyone else faced this problem and come up with a simple solution > not involving procurement of expensive new software? Yes. There are a few PDF readers which will print any number of sequential pages. You can also find free programs to trap the output to a printer and save it as a PDF file. So print from a Reader to Print-to-PDF program. QED (Quite Easily Done) -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

I want to select individual articles from a Google Book which consists of (say) 500 pages and store them as separate PDF files. Typical article length is 6-20 pages. The book out of copyright and is available as full text with scanned pages as images, the whole being in PDF format. I can laboriously download the whole file and then save to a PDF file on my PC (Windows XP). I can then open the saved file with Adobe Reader v8 and select pages one at a time and cut and paste them into pages of an Open Office word processor file. There does not seem in Adobe Reader to be a way to select multiple pages in one go, either with a view to copying, or with a view to deleting. Has anyone else faced this problem and come up with a simple solution not involving procurement of expensive new software? -- Michael Poole 2 Highlands Glade, Manston Ramsgate, Kent CT12 5GS Tel: 01843 822008

Robert wrote >seems far too aimed at conclusions rather than evidence The Master Genealogist is exactly that - aims at evidence storage - Version 7 has just been released. See www.whollygenes.com Bryan Wetton -----Original Message----- From: gencmp-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:gencmp-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of gencmp-request@rootsweb.com Sent: Friday, 1 February 2008 9:20 AM To: gencmp@rootsweb.com Subject: GENCMP Digest, Vol 3, Issue 23 Today's Topics: 1. Re: Genealogical evidence and data model (Tony Proctor) 2. Re: GedLink cannot install - Any link to .GED editors? (leonardodiserpierodavinci@gmail.com) 3. Re: GedLink cannot install - Any link to .GED editors? (Bob Jones) 4. Re: GedLink cannot install - Any link to .GED editors? (Dennis Lee Bieber) 5. Re: Genealogical evidence and data model (Haines Brown) 6. Re: Genealogical evidence and data model (Ian Goddard) 7. Re: Genealogical evidence and data model (Haines Brown) 8. Re: GedLink cannot install - Any link to .GED editors? (singhals) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:56:57 -0000 From: "Tony Proctor" <tony_proctor@aimtechnology_NoMoreSPAM_.com> Subject: Re: Genealogical evidence and data model To: gencmp@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <fns619$p26$1@reader01.news.esat.net> >> you don't need anything so hi-falautin' as a data-model ...which is basically my point Cheryl. You do need the data model for the formalised data, and that model must be flexible enough to cover the semantic & syntactic issues with variant dates, names, places, etc. All I was saying is that this kind of audit trail of how you came about the formalised data can be simply attached to each item as a free-form meta-data tag. It would seem to be a case of knowing when best to formalise data and when best to leave it free-form Tony Proctor "singhals" <singhals@erols.com> wrote in message news:tM6dnc77o_CMRj3anZ2dnUVZ_oKhnZ2d@rcn.net... > If that's all you're wanting to do, you don't need anything so > hi-falautin' as a data-model. You need a simple lab notebook used as > a log. Your .RTF file is perfectly good, up to a point, and that > point is where/when/if you have to PROVE you didn't go back and tweak > the data in it to make it fit. > > Cheryl > > Tony Proctor wrote: > > > I did some work in this area Cheryl but I elected to keep a simple rich-text > > description of the blow-by-blow gathering of evidence, e.g. where it came > > from, how, snippets of conversations with individuals (copied from email, > > IM, etc). It felt like projects such as Gentech might be trying to > > over-formalise such data. Obviously a lot of data such as linkages, events, > > dates, and stuff can be formalised but the record of the 'breadcrumb trails' > > you followed to get that data could be as varied in content and > > format as > > any of us could imagine. The provision of a simple "notes" item to accompany > > each item of formalised data seemed to be a practical compromise. > > > > The use of "rich-text" as opposed to plain text allowed me to embed links to > > specific parts of the formalised data, but that's covered in other threads. > > > > Tony Proctor > > > > "singhals" <singhals@erols.com> wrote in message > > news:9N-dnW2F5OThdRHanZ2dnUVZ_oKhnZ2d@rcn.net... > > > >>Robert Grumbine wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Oh well, a new person to the field, with ideas shaped by another, > >>>to whine some about what's available. Nothing new there. But > >>>maybe my whining can provide targets (some things I complain about > >>>might be solved) or, as we continue, some support for doing certain > >>>things could develop. I could write some suitable software to > >>>implement certain ideas, if it looked worthwhile. > >>> > >>> I've done some back reading as I get into the subject, including > >>>the gedcom/xml arguments, and am not really trying to go back to > >>>those. > >>> > >>> One interesting thing to me was the mention of the GENTECH > >>>Genealogical Data Model. The sad news there being that, > >>>apparently, nobody actually implements it. Or anything > >>>particularly close. > >>> > >>> I come to the computing/data from a science field (oceanography) > >>>and one of the things which has promptly bothered me is that the > >>>software available (paf, legacy, reunion) seems far too aimed at > >>>conclusions rather than evidence, and even more poorly aimed at > >>>representing source information trails. > >>> > >>> The evidence trail is something particularly bothersome to me. > >>>From my field, let's say our original observation is that it was > >>>22.2 C. Now, if that was all we had, we'd be ticked, because it > >>>doesn't tell us when the observation was taken, where it was, or > >>>how it was taken. All these metadata are important, and usually > >>>you can > >>>get them (with sufficient patience and phone calls, rather like > >>>genealogy in that, it seems). > >>> > >>> But that is only the proverbial tip of the ice berg. Because > >>>that 22.2 C observation (with rest of support) is almost certainly > >>>not exactly the number we're going to use for analyzing the air-sea > >>>heat flux, or sea surface temperature, or whatever it is we're > >>>doing. The thing is, each observing method has biases. We know > >>>this, so adjust for them as relevant to our problem at hand. The > >>>problem that we _could_ run in to is that the 22.2 we now see is > >>>not the actual original observation. Someone could already have > >>>made the adjustment for intake temperature bias. How we avoid this > >>>is that the data (are supposed to be) are given histories. The > >>>original observation (and its metadata) are augmented by a new > >>>value and _its_ metadata (22.4 C after George applied John Doe's > >>>intake temperature bias correction, say), and this additional > >>>information then follows along. I could decide that John Doe's > >>>correction method is not the best, and instead apply, myself, Mary > >>>Roe's -- to the original 22.2, now that I know the 22.4 was after > >>>somebody else applied a correction I don't like to arrive at it. > >>>Not clear to me yet (I've been doing some light reading of the data > >>>model document, but not carefully nor complete) whether the GENTECH > >>>supports this sort of consideration. > >>> > >>> A different problem is that the typical software treatment seems > >>>to be that it has little or no ability to track exactly what the > >>>evidence and sources are. For instance, it seems that if I import > >>>a file from someone and they cite a census record, I have my choice > >>>of ignoring that _my_ source was Jane Genealogist, not the orignal > >>>record, and preserve the census citation, or I can _add_ Jane as a > >>>source. Now this is a problem, in my mind. When I look later, it > >>>will show two sources -- the census, and Jane. But my real state > >>>of knowledge is only that Jane _said_ the census had some > >>>information. This isn't two independant sources, it's 1 source, 1 > >>>step removed from the primary document. (Please, no jumping on > >>>that usage, I realize that there's a trade meaning to the term > >>>'primary document', and census isn't an example.) What I want the > >>>software to do is, when I import a file that has citations, mark > >>>that my source is Jane, and her sources were ... whatever she said. > >>>If I'm making a 20th generation copy/import (of a copy of a copy > >>>...), then the software should show the prior 19 importers as well > >>>as the original person who looked at a document. GENTECH seems to > >>>support this concern of mine, but with no implementation thereof, > >>>I'm still sol. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >>First off -- PAF, Legacy, Reunion are all lineage-linked databases. > >>You'll probably be slightly happier with one of the EVENT-linked > >>databases; I know there are at least two, I remember only one name > >>(The Master Genealogist). > >> > >>Second, when those older programs were being written, a permanent > >>way to record conclusions is what was wanted. NO ONE wanted to have > >>to keep handwriting copies for the family if the computer would > >>print it out for you. TMG came along later, when computer genealogy > >>wasn't quite as insular as it had been. But, I'd venture to suggest > >>that out of any 100 genealogists at least 51% _still_ want a program > >>to record their conclusions so they can print it out. This doesn't > >>mean that 49% is insignificant, it just means it's the minority. > >> > >>Now. > >> > >>I like the concept (I can hear people falling over in > >>droves) of tracking who-said-what-and-when-did-he-say-it. > >>However, let's bring a touch of realism in ... I'll even play fair > >>and use one of my smaller databases as the example. > >> > >>Database L has 2000 names; each name has one source per datapoint > >>(i.e., a source for the name, for the parent relationship, for the > >>bd, for the bp, for the spouse, for the md, for the mp, for the dd, > >>for the dp), which is 10 > >>sources per name, potentially 20,000 source entries. By > >>the time that data is re-tagged with each of 20 iterations, it is > >>going to be unmanageable. The more supporting documentation (i.e., > >>complete extracts of books, images of documents, etc etc) you > >>include, the faster it will become unmanageable. > >> > >>I tried doing it manually for one project, but it palled very > >>quickly. > >> > >>I still like the idea of knowing where you got it, but I'm > >>unconvinced it is worth the programmer's effort or the user's effort > >>of maintaining the chain-of-evidence. > >> > >>Cheryl > > > > > > ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:02:34 -0800 (PST) From: "leonardodiserpierodavinci@gmail.com" <leonardodiserpierodavinci@gmail.com> Subject: Re: GedLink cannot install - Any link to .GED editors? To: gencmp@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <0056fb5c-256f-47d5-8506-91a7128ba0f7@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Jan 22, 5:23 pm, Charlie Hoffpauir <inva...@invalid.com> wrote: > PAF and Legacy are the two that come immediately to mind. I've > downloaded and tried both (didn't really like either one very much, > but that's a personal choice, many people do like them and use them) > > Legacy fromhttp://www.legacyfamilytree.com/Download.asp > PAF fromhttp://www.familysearch.org/ > > I'm really surprised to hear that you found 3 genealogy programs that > would NOT import GED files. I've tried many programs, and every one I > tried easily imported GEDCOMs. I tried Legacy Family Tree and it seems OK. It comes with a Stardard edition which is free. I installed PAF a few weeks ago and as far as I remember it did not have the option to import GED files. Thanks for the links. ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:35:06 GMT From: "Bob Jones" <rjo25512@bigpond.net.au> Subject: Re: GedLink cannot install - Any link to .GED editors? To: gencmp@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <uvhoj.9400$421.8059@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <much snipped> > I installed PAF a few weeks ago and as far as I remember it did not > have the option to import GED files. Thanks for the links. PAF can import geds - do "File" then "Import" then pick GED to import. -- Bob JONES Where does your lap go when you stand up? ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:03:23 -0800 From: Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: GedLink cannot install - Any link to .GED editors? To: gencmp@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <13q3anrrllfjuf7@corp.supernews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:02:34 -0800 (PST), "leonardodiserpierodavinci@gmail.com" <leonardodiserpierodavinci@gmail.com> declaimed the following in soc.genealogy.computing: > I installed PAF a few weeks ago and as far as I remember it did not > have the option to import GED files. > Thanks for the links. Really? PAF is, as I recall, produced by the people who, theoretically, /define/ what is a GEDCOM file... It would seem rather odd that it wouldn't import their own data transfer file... -- Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG wlfraed@ix.netcom.com wulfraed@bestiaria.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/ (Bestiaria Support Staff: web-asst@bestiaria.com) HTTP://www.bestiaria.com/ ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:11:12 -0500 From: Haines Brown <brownh@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> Subject: Re: Genealogical evidence and data model To: gencmp@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <877ihqxkin.fsf@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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? As an historian, I'm puzzled by the debate over whether it is necessary to go beyond presentation to include the source evidence. Without defending the point, let me offer my impression of the difference. Presentation and content seem the contradictory aspects of one process. They are interdependent and equally necessary. Under modern conditions, we distinguish form and content (CSS markup being a familiar example) because we distinguish individual and society. It seems to me that a set of conclusions in themselves (that is, disconnected from the supporting evidence and argumentation) have no truth value because truth is a social phenomenon. On the other hand, presentation conveys a socially constructed truth in a form meaningful for the individual, which is obviously a condition necessary for the social construction of truth. One without the other makes no sense. I'm also unclear why people are having so much difficulty handling ambiguity in their databases. The reason may be that I'm unfamiliar with the software so far mentioned. I happen to use LifeLines, and if there's ambiguity, I can readily inject a note in the GEDCOM saying so. I assume other software can do the same, and so am not clear about the problem. -- Haines Brown, KB1GRM ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:03:38 +0000 From: Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> Subject: Re: Genealogical evidence and data model To: gencmp@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <NYidncutBenHbDzanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Haines Brown 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? > My issue is between evidence-based structures and interpretation-based structures. > As an historian, I'm puzzled by the debate over whether it is necessary > to go beyond presentation to include the source evidence. Without > defending the point, let me offer my impression of the > difference. Presentation and content seem the contradictory aspects of > one process. They are interdependent and equally necessary. Under modern > conditions, we distinguish form and content (CSS markup being a familiar > example) because we distinguish individual and society. It seems to me > that a set of conclusions in themselves (that is, disconnected from the > supporting evidence and argumentation) have no truth value because > truth is a social phenomenon. An interesting thought! Imagine, if you can, that you have been wrongly accused of a serious crime. Now, is the truth of your innocence a social phenomenon or an absolute? This sort of thinking is, or should be, part of the approach on anyone investigating the past. The truth of the situation may not be knowable to the investigator but it is (or was if the past is sufficiently distant) knowable to those involved. It's our attempts to grasp it which are the social phenomenon. > On the other hand, presentation conveys a > socially constructed truth in a form meaningful for the individual, > which is obviously a condition necessary for the social construction of > truth. One without the other makes no sense. I think your "social construction of truth" is my "interpretation". > > I'm also unclear why people are having so much difficulty handling > ambiguity in their databases. The reason may be that I'm unfamiliar with > the software so far mentioned. I happen to use LifeLines, and if there's > ambiguity, I can readily inject a note in the GEDCOM saying so. I assume > other software can do the same, and so am not clear about the problem. > How would you handle this situation: Two men, Andy and Bob with the surname each have a son called Charlie in the same year. Subsequently a man called Charlie with the same surname and who can be shown to have been born in that year marries and has a child called David. The sons of Andy and Bob are the only two candidates for David's father but with no good grounds to distinguish between them. How do you then show David's ancestry? Do you choose to link him back to Andy with a note that Bob might actually be the grandfather (or the converse)? If so then you may have *noted* the ambiguity but you have not *recorded* it in your structure. -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:41:20 GMT From: Haines Brown <brownh@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> Subject: Re: Genealogical evidence and data model To: gencmp@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <87bq71u3o3.fsf@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> writes: > Imagine, if you can, that you have been wrongly accused of a serious > crime. Now, is the truth of your innocence a social phenomenon or an > absolute? A crime is socially defined (Robinson Crusoe could not commit a crime), but the act is individual. Hence we are back to the notion that individual and society are aspects of one process (this is conventionally called "social being"). Anyway... > How would you handle this situation: Two men, Andy and Bob with the > surname each have a son called Charlie in the same year. Subsequently > a man called Charlie with the same surname and who can be shown to > have been born in that year marries and has a child called David. The > sons of Andy and Bob are the only two candidates for David's father > but with no good grounds to distinguish between them. How do you then > show David's ancestry? Do you choose to link him back to Andy with a > note that Bob might actually be the grandfather (or the converse)? If > so then you may have *noted* the ambiguity but you have not *recorded* > it in your structure. I respond, not to answer your question, but to get a better understanding of the issue. This David would have a GEDCOM entry like this: n @<XREF:FAM>@ FAM For example, 0 @F4@ FAM So couldn't Charles I (son of Andy) possibly be F4, while Charles II (son of Bob) is F5? So a David with "0 @F4@ FAM" would umambiguously be the son of Charles I. What am I misunderstanding? -- Haines Brown, KB1GRM ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:49:03 -0500 From: singhals <singhals@erols.com> Subject: Re: GedLink cannot install - Any link to .GED editors? To: gencmp@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <5Z-dnTjsPpv9zT_anZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@rcn.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Charlie Hoffpauir wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:03:23 -0800, Dennis Lee Bieber > <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:02:34 -0800 (PST), >>"leonardodiserpierodavinci@gmail.com" >><leonardodiserpierodavinci@gmail.com> declaimed the following in >>soc.genealogy.computing: >> >> >> >>>I installed PAF a few weeks ago and as far as I remember it did not >>>have the option to import GED files. >>>Thanks for the links. >> >> Really? >> >> PAF is, as I recall, produced by the people who, theoretically, >>/define/ what is a GEDCOM file... It would seem rather odd that it >>wouldn't import their own data transfer file... > > > Apparently Leonardo is commenting without really learning how to use > the programs that he has downloaded. I'm still waiting for the names > of the 3 programs he downloaded that will not import GEDCOM files. > > I must have tried about 20 different programs over the last 20 years, > and I really didn't find a single one that wouldn't read the basic > data from a GEDCOM. Not all did a decent job of it, but I was able to > get names, and bmd dates. > The Family Edge /DOS (TFE) in its freeware version did not do GED. In fact, IRRC, even the paid version required a utility to do GED. A freebie that didn't do GED was something called "Genealogy" -- OTOH, maybe what it didn't do was work on any of my boxes rather than not doing GED, since I never got to the point where I could even do dataentry with it. Eucalyptus a shareware out of Oz didn't do GED either. OTOH, all those programs have been defunct for more than 8 years, and I didn't even know you could still d/l 'em. Cheryl End of GENCMP Digest, Vol 3, Issue 23 ************************************* -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.18/1254 - Release Date: 1/31/2008 8:30 PM

While the entire file/book is in view, would it not be possible to print only those pages in which you are interested? I guess it all depends on what you intend to do with the chosen printed pages. They could be scanned & dumped into a Word.doc file. While the following suggestion will NOT accomplish what you're trying to do at the moment, you might find "Paperless Printer" useful at some point. Check it out at - http://www.download.com/PaperlessPrinter/3000-2064_4-10210847.html Carl Michael Poole wrote: > I want to select individual articles from a Google Book which consists > of (say) 500 pages and store them as separate PDF files. Typical article > length is 6-20 pages. > > The book out of copyright and is available as full text with scanned > pages as images, the whole being in PDF format. I can laboriously > download the whole file and then save to a PDF file on my PC (Windows > XP). I can then open the saved file with Adobe Reader v8 and select > pages one at a time and cut and paste them into pages of an Open Office > word processor file. > > There does not seem in Adobe Reader to be a way to select multiple pages > in one go, either with a view to copying, or with a view to deleting. > > Has anyone else faced this problem and come up with a simple solution > not involving procurement of expensive new software? > > >

Haines Brown 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? Leaping happily to the conclusion that you mean lineage-linked vs event-linked, rather than what you've rather clearly SAID (relation-based vs event based) ... Succinctly: lineage-linked concerns itself with WHO; event-linked concerns WHAT. In a Lineage-linked database, the important thing is the linkage between a maximum of three persons (two parents and a child). It confines itself to those persons believed to social and/or biological relations (parent, child, spouse). In an event-linked database, the important thing is the EVENT itself, to which may be linked/attached to an unlimited number of persons. An event-linked database CAN include (but need not include) all persons present at the event. --In the case of a marriage, all persons present include the clergy, the altar-boys, the organist, the choir, the janitor, the guests, the bride, the groom, their attendants, any officialdom necessary in your corner of the world, the parents of the bride and groom ... --In the Event of a baptism, all persons present again include the baptisee, the parents, the clergy, the organist, congregation, witnesses/sponsors/godparents ... HTH Cheryl

Michael Poole wrote: > I want to select individual articles from a Google Book which consists > of (say) 500 pages and store them as separate PDF files. Typical article > length is 6-20 pages. > > The book out of copyright and is available as full text with scanned > pages as images, the whole being in PDF format. I can laboriously > download the whole file and then save to a PDF file on my PC (Windows > XP). I can then open the saved file with Adobe Reader v8 and select > pages one at a time and cut and paste them into pages of an Open Office > word processor file. > > There does not seem in Adobe Reader to be a way to select multiple pages > in one go, either with a view to copying, or with a view to deleting. > > Has anyone else faced this problem and come up with a simple solution > not involving procurement of expensive new software? > > > Go to; http://www.paologios.com/ and download PDF Splitter And Merger v1.12 - Executable Zipped It will do what you want if the file is not locked. -- Gene Y. n2kvs Researching Young, Zies, Harer & Cox with Legacy Family Tree http://h1.ripway.com/egptech/

singhals <singhals@erols.com> writes: > Haines Brown 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? > > Leaping happily to the conclusion that you mean > lineage-linked vs event-linked, rather than what you've > rather clearly SAID (relation-based vs event based) ... > > Succinctly: lineage-linked concerns itself with WHO; > event-linked concerns WHAT. > > In a Lineage-linked database, the important thing is the > linkage between a maximum of three persons (two parents and > a child). It confines itself to those persons believed to > social and/or biological relations (parent, child, spouse). > > > In an event-linked database, the important thing is the > EVENT itself, to which may be linked/attached to an > unlimited number of persons. An event-linked database CAN > include (but need not include) all persons present at the > event. > > --In the case of a marriage, all persons present include the > clergy, the altar-boys, the organist, the choir, the > janitor, the guests, the bride, the groom, their attendants, > any officialdom necessary in your corner of the world, the > parents of the bride and groom ... > > --In the Event of a baptism, all persons present again > include the baptisee, the parents, the clergy, the organist, > congregation, witnesses/sponsors/godparents ... How do you find the pedigree of an individual in an event-linked database? It would seem that you'd have links to all over the place to a lot of events that many people would consider to be trivia and no "root" from which to start tracing the lineage of any individual. Perhaps I don't grasp the concept of event-linked data, but it makes it seem that event-linked would be like a stew -- everything's in there but just try to find a particular item.