On Jan 31, 12:03 pm, Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > 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... Then probably I am confusing it with another software name. But I tried three genealogy programs which could not import GED (note: only freeware and, for those programs which required purchase, their free edition with limited features). This is why I asked for a suggestion on this NG. I am a newbie in genealogy and, as GedLink seems to be defunct, I thought GED format could have been obsoleted -- which would have made my research for a software far from trivial. Thanks to all for your suggestions.

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

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

On Jan 31, 4:49 pm, singhals <singh...@erols.com> wrote: > Charlie Hoffpauir wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:03:23 -0800, Dennis Lee Bieber > > <wlfr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:02:34 -0800 (PST), > >>"leonardodiserpierodavi...@gmail.com" > >><leonardodiserpierodavi...@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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Bad genealogy programs, like bad genealogy, seem to float around the net forever. *GRIN*

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

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

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. -- Charlie Hoffpauir http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

<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?

>> 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 > > > > > >

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

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.

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

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 > > >

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:39:11 +0000, Ian Goddard wrote: > leonardodiserpierodavinci@gmail.com wrote: >> [11 quoted lines suppressed] > > More than just a GED editor Gramps > http://www.gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page will import > GED. GenealogyJ is a Java app that works with gedcoms - a bit quirky but seems to do a competent job. BobC -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Terry Pinnell <terrypin@dial.pipex.com> wrote: >myths@ic24.net (cecilia) wrote: > >>Terry Pinnell wrote >>>I've got myself a bit confused about a very basic point. I'm making >>>some tree charts for a long-widowed aunt who uses her married name, >>>say Mary Smith. But in FTM she is of course identified by her maiden >>>name, say Mary Brown. How do you resolve the problem that the tree >>>charts will be headed 'Mary Smith', a name she and her relatives >>>haven't used for decades? If anyone ends up here with a similar query, the above will only add to confusion! It should of course have been: "How do you resolve the problem that the tree charts will be headed 'Mary Brown', a name she and her relatives haven't used for decades?" -- Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Terry Pinnell wrote: > I've got myself a bit confused about a very basic point. I'm making > some tree charts for a long-widowed aunt who uses her married name, > say Mary Smith. But in FTM she is of course identified by her maiden > name, say Mary Brown. How do you resolve the problem that the tree > charts will be headed 'Mary Smith', a name she and her relatives > haven't used for decades? > You can always EDIT the report and add "Wife of Adolphus SMITH" to the title. Cheryl

Terry Pinnell wrote: > A couple of years ago I carefully prepared several tree chart views > for an individual 'Elizabeth Surname', and saved them. Recently, > resuming my research, I've made many corrections/additions to her > tree. I've also corrected her first name, which in fact is 'Betty'. > > But on opening the saved views, although all the detail changes are > correctly reflected, the *heading* is not! It still shows, for > example, 'Elizabeth Surname: Ancestors & Descendants'. > > A bug in FTM 2006? Can I change something to correct this please? Or > must I remake the views from scratch? > > In FTM 2005, I click 'Contents' on the menu bar, then 'Title & Footnote'. That might work for you? Paul

Terry Pinnell wrote >I've got myself a bit confused about a very basic point. I'm making >some tree charts for a long-widowed aunt who uses her married name, >say Mary Smith. But in FTM she is of course identified by her maiden >name, say Mary Brown. How do you resolve the problem that the tree >charts will be headed 'Mary Smith', a name she and her relatives >haven't used for decades? You could head the chart "Mary Brown, nee Smith"

In message <tkqhp3lal5k9l9a2s1neu7kqurpkt3dlrk@4ax.com>, Terry Pinnell <terrypin@dial.pipex.com> writes >I've got myself a bit confused about a very basic point. I'm making >some tree charts for a long-widowed aunt who uses her married name, say >Mary Smith. But in FTM she is of course identified by her maiden name, >say Mary Brown. How do you resolve the problem that the tree charts >will be headed 'Mary Smith', a name she and her relatives haven't used >for decades? To be honest, I don't see why this is a problem. The majority of married women and widows (and a greater majority of older ones) use their husbands surname and are known by that name, but most family members will know what her maiden name was. It would be odd to see a tree than said John White and Jane Brown (or Jane White) were the parents of Mary Smith and not just odd, but actually incorrect to show Mary Smith marrying Henry Smith, rather than Mary White marrying Henry Smith. -- Jenny "I always like to have the morning well-aired before I get up." (Beau Brummel, 1778-1840)

Paul Blair <pblair@pcug.org.au> wrote: >Terry Pinnell wrote: >> A couple of years ago I carefully prepared several tree chart views >> for an individual 'Elizabeth Surname', and saved them. Recently, >> resuming my research, I've made many corrections/additions to her >> tree. I've also corrected her first name, which in fact is 'Betty'. >> >> But on opening the saved views, although all the detail changes are >> correctly reflected, the *heading* is not! It still shows, for >> example, 'Elizabeth Surname: Ancestors & Descendants'. >> >> A bug in FTM 2006? Can I change something to correct this please? Or >> must I remake the views from scratch? >> >> > >In FTM 2005, I click 'Contents' on the menu bar, then 'Title & >Footnote'. That might work for you? > >Paul Excellent, thanks Paul - so simple once you know! That also solves the similar problem I've just raised in the post 'Married women's surnames?'. Presumably that's a commonly-encountered issue? Can't say I've so far found mention of it in the FTM user guide or Help. -- Terry, East Grinstead, UK