Dennis wrote: > ..., it looks like ASSERTION.Value is there to hold a pointer to either > an Event-Type-Role-ID or a Group-Type-Role-ID (what the model calls a > "value connection"). So it sounds to me that it could very well be an > unused attribute when in the context of a CHARACTERISTIC. > Characteristics that consist of multiple parts (like names) can be > assembled using CHARACTERISTIC-PART.Sequence-Number, right? > > Thanks for your comments, > That's how I read it. -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk

Dennis wrote: > I have a question regarding a couple of the attributes in the GENTECH > Genealogical Data Model at... > > https://www.ngsgenealogy.org/ngsgentech/projects/Gdm/Gdm.cfm > > I am looking at the two attributes ASSERTION.Value (p. 47) and > CHARACTERISTIC-PART.Characteristic-Part-Name (p. 50). Can someone > explain (and possibly give examples) of the differences between the two? > > I guess what is confusing me is that the brief example in the > description of ASSERTION.Value on p. 47 seems to be at odds with another > more detailed example on p. 34. > > [[In an attempt to alleviate the boredom of winter, I am trying to > design my own physical implementation of the GENTECH Genealogical Data > Model. I need to get a life...]] > > Thanks, > As far as I can see the purpose of a CHARACTERISTIC would be to enable a single ASSERTION to have multiple values (note the lower case "v"!). "If the ASSERTION is about a characteristic like a person’s name, there will be one CHARACTERISTIC for one to many CHARACTERISTIC-PARTs. If the characteristic is occupation, for example, there will be one CHARACTERISTIC-PART." If there is only a single value then this could equally well be stored in the ASSERTION.Value but if there are multiple values then they will be held in a series of CHARACTERISTIC-PART.Characteristic-Part-Names. (ISTM that Characteristic-Part-Value would be better terminology) Whilst the simple example has a single CHARACTERISTIC-PART a name might have more, for instance one with a Characteristic-Part-Type-Name of FirstName and one with a Characteristic-Part-Type-Name of LastName with respective Characteristic-Type-Names of John and Smith respectively. I doubt I'd have modeled it in that way myself. For one thing, why separate CHARACTERISTIC-PART-TYPE out into a single entity? I'd tend to have a data type to represent a name/value pair. From a modeling perspective I'd then make ASSERTION.Value a list of such pairs. -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk

Ian Goddard wrote: > singhals wrote: > >> >> What makes it more a problem in a computer database than in, say, an >> index-card file or a letter? >> > > It isn't any more of a problem. It's simply that any S/W I've seen > doesn't make provision for what could be done very simply with cards - > write a card for each name in a record and clip them together if you > think they're the same person and unclip them if you cease to think that. > > In fact a database, designed with this in mind can do more - it can > provide simultaneous "clips" to represent alternative views as to which > names represent the same person. > > Some time ago I asked for any examples of S/W which did do this; none > were offered. > > There is (or was, a few years back) a program that created index cards. It was said at the time that you could do anything with these entries that you could do with real index cards. Perhaps someone else remembers the name of that program. There is also a "sticky note" program you might find useful. These are on view at Rootsweb's WorldConnect among other places. I keep having the feeling that you're wanting to do data ANALYSIS, not data recordation. I've said before and will say again, The Master Genealogist is one D**** fine data analysis tool. Cheryl

I have a question regarding a couple of the attributes in the GENTECH Genealogical Data Model at... https://www.ngsgenealogy.org/ngsgentech/projects/Gdm/Gdm.cfm I am looking at the two attributes ASSERTION.Value (p. 47) and CHARACTERISTIC-PART.Characteristic-Part-Name (p. 50). Can someone explain (and possibly give examples) of the differences between the two? I guess what is confusing me is that the brief example in the description of ASSERTION.Value on p. 47 seems to be at odds with another more detailed example on p. 34. [[In an attempt to alleviate the boredom of winter, I am trying to design my own physical implementation of the GENTECH Genealogical Data Model. I need to get a life...]] Thanks, -- Dennis

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:42:14 +0200, Steve Hayes <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:19:24 -0500, Dennis <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: > >>Is there a mailing list for discussing specifics of the GENTECH >>Genealogical Data Model? Or is s.g.c the appropriate forum? > >s.c.g. is an appropriate forum, but there is also a mailinglist > >gensoft@yahoogroups.com > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gensoft/ > >which is intended for discussions of genealogy software, including >development. Thanks. I'll post my question here (in another thread later today) as a start. -- Dennis

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:19:24 -0500, Dennis <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >Is there a mailing list for discussing specifics of the GENTECH >Genealogical Data Model? Or is s.g.c the appropriate forum? s.c.g. is an appropriate forum, but there is also a mailinglist gensoft@yahoogroups.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gensoft/ which is intended for discussions of genealogy software, including development. -- 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 wrote: > give the location as Wath on Dearne and the other Elland? We're used to > dismissing such member submissions out of hand but one has to assume > that they had some basis for naming Elland and Wath. It's quite > possible that the members have some other evidence which places one or > both of these names in one or both of those towns at some time. As I'd And it's also possible that it was an outright error. A typo in one version of my GEDCOM made Christopher Gist his own grandfather. In spite of the warnings and disclaimers on WorldConnect, this has been copied and republished by at least two others. Kindred Konnections, in violation of the prohibition in the GEDCOM file, put it on a CD for commercial sale. I downloaded two or more independent submissions from Ancestral file that looked nearly identical and traced the same Christopher Gist all the way back to Adam & Eve. -- Wes Groleau http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/ For lovers of language and learning

Bob LeChevalier wrote: > > How would you show that in a tree? (or some other form). Until people > can see the information they have entered (or its indirect effects) on > output, they likely won't spend a lot of effort on input. This is undoubtedly a significant factor. We have inherited report styles which were designed to hide ambiguities; people wanted to claim their ancestry, not understand it. -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk

Wes Groleau wrote: > Ian Goddard wrote: >> singhals wrote: >>> 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. >> >> If that wish were properly implemented things wouldn't be so bad. But >> when I get back to the mid C18th the only conclusion for quite a >> number of lines is "A or B" or even "A or B or C". >> >> S/W which assumes that pedigrees can always be resolved unambiguously >> won't handle this situation. I can't believe that the situation is >> uncommon so how do users of such S/W cope? Do they simply stop entering > > If you consider that Cheryl is using the popular definition > of "genealogist," you'd realize that most of them pick the > one they like best and assume it is fact. (And one-third > of those publish it on Ancestry or GenCircles or WorldConnect > or LDS Ancestral file or umpteen other such sites.) > That was the third option on my list. Most of 'em do it. It still doesn't mean I have to like it! And the fact that the S/W which enables them to publish without supporting data is one of the things which makes me dislike it. If, for instance, you search IGI for the marriage of William Goddard in 1753 in Yorkshire you get 3 entries. This turns up three entries, two of which include the bride's name, Catherine Castle. The "real" extract (despite misspelling William's surname) has the correct location, Cumberworth. The actual registry entry for Cumberworth is crystal clear in the fiche and leaves no doubt that both parties were from Kirkburton parish where the banns were read. So why does one member submission give the location as Wath on Dearne and the other Elland? We're used to dismissing such member submissions out of hand but one has to assume that they had some basis for naming Elland and Wath. It's quite possible that the members have some other evidence which places one or both of these names in one or both of those towns at some time. As I'd like to be able to eliminate from my enquiries one of the two William Goddards from Kirkburton I'd like to be able to evaluate this evidence. The evidence is more useful than the conclusion. -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk

Ian Goddard wrote: > singhals wrote: >> 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. > > If that wish were properly implemented things wouldn't be so bad. But > when I get back to the mid C18th the only conclusion for quite a number > of lines is "A or B" or even "A or B or C". > > S/W which assumes that pedigrees can always be resolved unambiguously > won't handle this situation. I can't believe that the situation is > uncommon so how do users of such S/W cope? Do they simply stop entering If you consider that Cheryl is using the popular definition of "genealogist," you'd realize that most of them pick the one they like best and assume it is fact. (And one-third of those publish it on Ancestry or GenCircles or WorldConnect or LDS Ancestral file or umpteen other such sites.) -- Wes Groleau Promote multi-use trails in northeast Indiana! http://www.NorthwestAllenTrails.org/

Ian Goddard wrote: > singhals wrote: >> >> What makes it more a problem in a computer database than in, say, an >> index-card file or a letter? >> > > It isn't any more of a problem. It's simply that any S/W I've seen > doesn't make provision for what could be done very simply with cards - > write a card for each name in a record and clip them together if you > think they're the same person and unclip them if you cease to think that. > > In fact a database, designed with this in mind can do more - it can > provide simultaneous "clips" to represent alternative views as to which > names represent the same person. > > Some time ago I asked for any examples of S/W which did do this; none > were offered. to undo that kind of mistake in FTM just duplicate thge individual and disconnect one example edit the data to both to make the correction complete best of all don't merge individuals unless you have access to complete source data eg parish registers as a whole Hugh W -- For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/ http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG

singhals wrote: > > What makes it more a problem in a computer database than in, say, an > index-card file or a letter? > It isn't any more of a problem. It's simply that any S/W I've seen doesn't make provision for what could be done very simply with cards - write a card for each name in a record and clip them together if you think they're the same person and unclip them if you cease to think that. In fact a database, designed with this in mind can do more - it can provide simultaneous "clips" to represent alternative views as to which names represent the same person. Some time ago I asked for any examples of S/W which did do this; none were offered. -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk

Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote: >> In message of 20 Jan, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> singhals wrote: >>>> 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. I suspect that number is more like 95%, with the emphasis on "print it out" or otherwise displaying the results. >>> If that wish were properly implemented things wouldn't be so bad. But >>> when I get back to the mid C18th the only conclusion for quite a number >>> of lines is "A or B" or even "A or B or C". >>> >>> S/W which assumes that pedigrees can always be resolved unambiguously >>> won't handle this situation. I can't believe that the situation is >>> uncommon so how do users of such S/W cope? Do they simply stop entering >>> their results when they get back to an ambiguity? Do they allow their >>> S/W to dictate to them that they should choose what might at the time >>> appear to be the most likely ancestor and discard the rest? Do they >>> generate parallel universes of databases to handle all the alternative >>> combinations? >> >> I detect here, though I could be wrong, a thesis that it is possible to >> prove facts by logic. Computers are products of logic. So computers >> can easily prove genealogical facts. > >No. It's simply remarking on the fact that if the designer of a program >assumes that the data will fit an unambiguous structure then they will >fail to design a program which can handle alternatives. And asking what >users do when confronted with a situation which the designer has not >envisaged. The software I use (Legacy Family Tree) allows me to enter multiple parents for an individual, which I can then comment. But the real problem is that there is no effective way to display or report this. I can enter all the ambiguous data I want, but the bottom line result is that when it draws a tree, or creates a report, it wants to pick one of the alternative parents. Most people doing genealogy like trees or other graphic renditions of their data. Some like text-based approaches - but ahnentafl numbering does not allow for alternatives/ambiguity as well, and I don't know of any other basic genealogy report that can report on the ambiguities in any standard fashion. The best I've been able to do is put a special character in the "title" field that is part of the name for those individuals that are particularly hypothetical. But that doesn't really solve the problem. I may know that my ancestor's name is John Smith, but the ambiguity is in which of the many people by that name is the correct one. Thus one needs more flexibility than software typically allows to enter alternate dates. Legacy allows this - I can use "events" as well as notes to enter alternative values, and I can the source evidence and my certainty about the interpretation I am putting on that evidence. But the trees and reports don't display all of the "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s. And I don't think that any improvement of the data model would really help if the charting and reporting don't present results that meet their needs. System design, as I see it, needs to take into account the likely outputs as well as the likely inputs. Most of the discussion of the data model seems to be about representing the inputs accurately. But most people use software to produce outputs, or to allow effective and efficient searching of the data that they have entered (the ability to search is itself a kind of output). Forgetting the output side in order to maximally represent the vagaries of the inputs will not get people to enter data properly. They will enter data properly when there are well designed reports and charts that present that data most clearly and usefully when entered properly. >> Regrettably this is not logic. Logic is not about truth claims, it is >> about the rules of truth claim and thus its subject is all statements >> whether true or false. > >Ah, I see how I misled you. I wasn't using "or" as a logical operator >but simply saying that, for example, "Mary Collier who was the bride in >this marriage was either Mary daughter of George Collier whose baptism >is recorded in record A or Mary daughter of Abel Collier whose baptism >is recorded in record B". How would you show that in a tree? (or some other form). Until people can see the information they have entered (or its indirect effects) on output, they likely won't spend a lot of effort on input. lojbab

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote: > In message of 20 Jan, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >> singhals wrote: >>> 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. >> If that wish were properly implemented things wouldn't be so bad. But >> when I get back to the mid C18th the only conclusion for quite a number >> of lines is "A or B" or even "A or B or C". >> >> S/W which assumes that pedigrees can always be resolved unambiguously >> won't handle this situation. I can't believe that the situation is >> uncommon so how do users of such S/W cope? Do they simply stop entering >> their results when they get back to an ambiguity? Do they allow their >> S/W to dictate to them that they should choose what might at the time >> appear to be the most likely ancestor and discard the rest? Do they >> generate parallel universes of databases to handle all the alternative >> combinations? > > I detect here, though I could be wrong, a thesis that it is possible to > prove facts by logic. Computers are products of logic. So computers > can easily prove genealogical facts. > No. It's simply remarking on the fact that if the designer of a program assumes that the data will fit an unambiguous structure then they will fail to design a program which can handle alternatives. And asking what users do when confronted with a situation which the designer has not envisaged. > Regrettably this is not logic. Logic is not about truth claims, it is > about the rules of truth claim and thus its subject is all statements > whether true or false. Ah, I see how I misled you. I wasn't using "or" as a logical operator but simply saying that, for example, "Mary Collier who was the bride in this marriage was either Mary daughter of George Collier whose baptism is recorded in record A or Mary daughter of Abel Collier whose baptism is recorded in record B". > > If you want to establish facts you have got to give reasons and state > that these, to you, imply certain conclusions. Others can then see what > you are on about and make decisions on whether they agree or not. That > is the fun of human discourse. > > For my money, then, if you have some vague or inconclusive data, you > should set it out and your comments in Notes to the people concerned. > If you think that your arguments give a heavy balance of probabilities > of identifying a person, then say that and, even, put that person in > your database with the presumed connections. This is where things start to get problematic. The S/W I've seen would do this, in the example I gave, by merging Mary Collier the bride with one of the Mary Colliers who was baptised with little or no provision of demerging if subsequent informations shows the initial choice to have been wrong. A better way of handling it would be to keep as separate the entities representing the bride and the baptisms and provide a field in one of the entities which can record the link to another. All that's then needed in the event of a change of mind is to null out this field. An even better way of handling it would be to provide a different type of entity which is a link. The link would be a better place to hold the arguments and an assessment of their strength. It would even be possible to use such an entity to hold a negative association e.g. "these are different people". Using a separate entity for this purpose makes it much easier to record the alternatives as one can provide as many alternative links as required. > > This sort of problem gets all the more acute if you go into dealing with > medieval people where the surviving documents are very few and can be > difficult to interpret. But this does not mean that it is impossible to > establish a genealogy. Though it should mean that medieval genealogy is > a far better exercise of reasoning and discussion than any other, > because there are so many people who share an interest in the small > numbers of people whose records have survived. Of course, like so many > areas of human debate, sometimes tempers can and do get a little frayed! > I know - I read s.g.m! -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk

In message of 20 Jan, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > singhals wrote: > > 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. > > If that wish were properly implemented things wouldn't be so bad. But > when I get back to the mid C18th the only conclusion for quite a number > of lines is "A or B" or even "A or B or C". > > S/W which assumes that pedigrees can always be resolved unambiguously > won't handle this situation. I can't believe that the situation is > uncommon so how do users of such S/W cope? Do they simply stop entering > their results when they get back to an ambiguity? Do they allow their > S/W to dictate to them that they should choose what might at the time > appear to be the most likely ancestor and discard the rest? Do they > generate parallel universes of databases to handle all the alternative > combinations? I detect here, though I could be wrong, a thesis that it is possible to prove facts by logic. Computers are products of logic. So computers can easily prove genealogical facts. Regrettably this is not logic. Logic is not about truth claims, it is about the rules of truth claim and thus its subject is all statements whether true or false. If you want to establish facts you have got to give reasons and state that these, to you, imply certain conclusions. Others can then see what you are on about and make decisions on whether they agree or not. That is the fun of human discourse. For my money, then, if you have some vague or inconclusive data, you should set it out and your comments in Notes to the people concerned. If you think that your arguments give a heavy balance of probabilities of identifying a person, then say that and, even, put that person in your database with the presumed connections. This sort of problem gets all the more acute if you go into dealing with medieval people where the surviving documents are very few and can be difficult to interpret. But this does not mean that it is impossible to establish a genealogy. Though it should mean that medieval genealogy is a far better exercise of reasoning and discussion than any other, because there are so many people who share an interest in the small numbers of people whose records have survived. Of course, like so many areas of human debate, sometimes tempers can and do get a little frayed! -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

singhals wrote: > 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. If that wish were properly implemented things wouldn't be so bad. But when I get back to the mid C18th the only conclusion for quite a number of lines is "A or B" or even "A or B or C". S/W which assumes that pedigrees can always be resolved unambiguously won't handle this situation. I can't believe that the situation is uncommon so how do users of such S/W cope? Do they simply stop entering their results when they get back to an ambiguity? Do they allow their S/W to dictate to them that they should choose what might at the time appear to be the most likely ancestor and discard the rest? Do they generate parallel universes of databases to handle all the alternative combinations? -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 09:38:32 GMT, JD <jd4x4@<del.this>verizon.net> wrote: >I, for one, have decided to only support efforts to clean this mess up by >making "doing the right thing" (entering and passing on sources) as easy >and as accurately as possible for the largest amount of people. > >I applaud FTM 2008 and Ancestry.com for doing just that, and am eagerly >looking to see how quickly LDS and others follow suit. Presumably (hopefully?) FTM encourages users to actually check the Ancestry transcription rather than a click here source noted approach based on what Ancestry shows. I've lost count of how many times the wrong folio and page number is referenced by Ancestry as the source document for their English census transcriptions. -- Robert G. Eldridge Toronto NSW Australia http://www2.hunterlink.net.au/~ddrge/ Now researching ELDRIDGE families world wide 1000's at my Web site * Wanted * Any Eldridge related information

Ian Goddard wrote: > singhals wrote: > >> 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. > > > If that wish were properly implemented things wouldn't be so bad. But > when I get back to the mid C18th the only conclusion for quite a number > of lines is "A or B" or even "A or B or C". > Those aren't conclusions, IMO. Those are possibilities. > S/W which assumes that pedigrees can always be resolved unambiguously > won't handle this situation. I can't believe that the situation is > uncommon so how do users of such S/W cope? Do they simply stop entering > their results when they get back to an ambiguity? Do they allow their > S/W to dictate to them that they should choose what might at the time > appear to be the most likely ancestor and discard the rest? Do they > generate parallel universes of databases to handle all the alternative > combinations? > Generally, when I have _serious_ ambiguity and no way of selecting which I think is most likely, I put all the choices in the NOTES of the person who is the child of the ambiguous party. Paper charts, and prose annotations, had the same limitations. What makes it more a problem in a computer database than in, say, an index-card file or a letter? Cheryl

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:16:19 -0500, singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: >Ian Goddard wrote: > >> singhals wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> >> If that wish were properly implemented things wouldn't be so bad. But >> when I get back to the mid C18th the only conclusion for quite a number >> of lines is "A or B" or even "A or B or C". >> > >Those aren't conclusions, IMO. Those are possibilities. > >> S/W which assumes that pedigrees can always be resolved unambiguously >> won't handle this situation. I can't believe that the situation is >> uncommon so how do users of such S/W cope? Do they simply stop entering >> their results when they get back to an ambiguity? Do they allow their >> S/W to dictate to them that they should choose what might at the time >> appear to be the most likely ancestor and discard the rest? Do they >> generate parallel universes of databases to handle all the alternative >> combinations? >> > >Generally, when I have _serious_ ambiguity and no way of >selecting which I think is most likely, I put all the >choices in the NOTES of the person who is the child of the >ambiguous party. > >Paper charts, and prose annotations, had the same limitations. > >What makes it more a problem in a computer database than in, >say, an index-card file or a letter? > >Cheryl I think your last statement indicates a disconnect we're seeing. "Most" of the people commenting in this thread have probably never done genealogy any other way than using a computer. -- Charlie Hoffpauir http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

Ian Goddard wrote: > singhals wrote: >> 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. > > If that wish were properly implemented things wouldn't be so bad. But > when I get back to the mid C18th the only conclusion for quite a number > of lines is "A or B" or even "A or B or C". > > S/W which assumes that pedigrees can always be resolved unambiguously > won't handle this situation. I can't believe that the situation is > uncommon so how do users of such S/W cope? Do they simply stop entering > their results when they get back to an ambiguity? I stop entering connections when I reach an iffy one. Otherwise I would have in some cases four way branches. If ... and this is a fairly common case for people with medieval ancestry ... both sides of the possible break are there in the database securely connected by some roundabout path, I simply notate the possible connect in the notes of both sides of the break. Stated differently, adding this connection would add a cousin marriage at some later date. If there is no such roundabout connection, but there is a fairly large tree to be added if the connection is correct, I keep the tree in another file. I have considered keeping all these unconnected trees in one file, but so far have not done so. Doug McDonald