BTW, I apologise Wes for attributing the original post here to you rather than to "JD". I had misread the quoted section :-) Tony Proctor "Wes Groleau" <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote in message news:kKI8j.3439$c82.1373@trnddc01... > Tony Proctor wrote: > > >> Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote in > > >>> Tony Proctor wrote: > >>>> As a contrived illustration, consider some free-form notes that > >>>> wanted to reference a person's name, address during a particular > >>>> year, and the date they moved there: > >>>> > >>>> <Person("Anthony Proctor")> lives in <Person("Tony > >>>> Proctor").Address("2007-10-01").Country> and moved there in > >>>> <Event("ProctorMove").Year> > >>>> > >>> I and many others have thought about ways to tag words and phrases > >>> in free-form text with XML tags and attributes to carry the linking > >>> information. But as far as I know, none of us have ever actually > >>> produced a working implementation. > > > > Interestingly Wes, the snippet of my post that you quote here has nothing to > > do with XML. Although I did mention XML somewhere, it was to point out the > > You offered an example of tagging parts of text in an "XML-like" style, > so I thought I'd mention that others had had similar idea--similar > to that _part_ of your ideas. > > > inappropriateness of it since it's designed for hierarchical data, and > > family relationships are not hierarchical - they're a "network". > > XML and HTML are hierarchical in structure, as is GEDCOM. > BUT all three do have cross-referencing mechanisms. > > -- > Wes Groleau > ---- > The man who reads nothing at all is better educated > than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. > -- Thomas Jefferson

My example was probably more akin to HTML than to XML Wes. The essence, though, was that it encapsulated the relevant item, and provided a way to construct an associated live object (as in OOP) on-the-fly when the document is loaded. The syntax to achieve that needn't look like either HTML or XML. I merely used the '<...>' format since there was an obvious precedent. RTF and *.doc Word documents are also types of rich-text mark-up languages but don't use '<...>'. You could even argue that *.doc documents allow MS Word to construct objects on the fly. However, those objects, and both data formats, are concerned only with rendition and layout rather than semantic content. Tony Proctor "Wes Groleau" <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote in message news:kKI8j.3439$c82.1373@trnddc01... > Tony Proctor wrote: > > >> Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote in > > >>> Tony Proctor wrote: > >>>> As a contrived illustration, consider some free-form notes that > >>>> wanted to reference a person's name, address during a particular > >>>> year, and the date they moved there: > >>>> > >>>> <Person("Anthony Proctor")> lives in <Person("Tony > >>>> Proctor").Address("2007-10-01").Country> and moved there in > >>>> <Event("ProctorMove").Year> > >>>> > >>> I and many others have thought about ways to tag words and phrases > >>> in free-form text with XML tags and attributes to carry the linking > >>> information. But as far as I know, none of us have ever actually > >>> produced a working implementation. > > > > Interestingly Wes, the snippet of my post that you quote here has nothing to > > do with XML. Although I did mention XML somewhere, it was to point out the > > You offered an example of tagging parts of text in an "XML-like" style, > so I thought I'd mention that others had had similar idea--similar > to that _part_ of your ideas. > > > inappropriateness of it since it's designed for hierarchical data, and > > family relationships are not hierarchical - they're a "network". > > XML and HTML are hierarchical in structure, as is GEDCOM. > BUT all three do have cross-referencing mechanisms. > > -- > Wes Groleau > ---- > The man who reads nothing at all is better educated > than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. > -- Thomas Jefferson

Wasn't it Peter J Seymour who wrote: >What I find a bit disconcerting with GPS measurements is the question >of datums. Different measurements may be relative to different dataums. >For instance on Google Maps, the Greenwich meridian and 0 degrees >longitude do not coincide. Has any one found cases of confusion and >inaccuaracy in practice, such as not correctly locating a grave? You're very unlikely to find anything other than the WGS 84 datum being used in any recent software. The GPS satellites themselves use WGS 84, and so do things like Google Earth and Google Maps. (Although Google did use the ancient Tokyo Datum for locations in Japan when they first started those services). [There have been slight improvements in things like the WGS 84 ellipsoid and its Earth Gravity Model since WGS 84 came out, but they only make a difference of a few millimetres to locations on the Earth's surface. They refinements are mainly useful for extremely accurate positioning of satellites.] Before 1960, it wasn't particularly easy to obtain lat/lng coordinates accurate to within 100 feet, so moving the 0 degree line away from the historical Prime Meridian with WGS 60 didn't cause many problems. The differences between WGS 60, WGS 66, WGS 72 and WGS 84 changed locations by only a few feet in the worst case, so finding a grave that was marked using one of those datums would be affected more by the GPS error than by the difference in datum. Before 1 May 2000, the non-military GPS signals contained a random error of up to 10 metres anyway, so that would swamp any error due to a datum difference from records made before May 2000. -- Mike Williams Gentleman of Leisure

Hugh Watkins wrote: > genealogy or pedigree is for domestic animals > Be fair, Hugh. Genealogy is still in the title of the newsgroup! -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk

genealogy or pedigree is for domestic animals family history and social networking is where it is all going on your most vital task is to record the memories of the living , including your own, eg names, dates and places of photographs before they are lost forever Hugh W JD <jd4x4@ wrote: > singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote in > news:woCdnRKY5oEFNv_anZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@rcn.net: > > <snip> > >>>(Feel free to ignore me, I'm new here.) :-) >> >>We can tell. ;) >> > > > What else besides my admission gave it away? :-) > > >>However -- if I'm recording bits of evidence about everyone >>in a community, I'm writing a community history, NOT a >>family genealogy. If I'm writing in the abstract about one >>family's interactions with another, it's sociology not >>genealogy. If I'm writing about how the Mingo interacted >>with the Swedes, it's anthropology, not genealogy. >> >> > > Yes..exactly. But they all use "individuals" (with attributes) and > another element you're calling "evidence" (with attributes), but > differing criteria used to "connect" either the individual elements or > the other elements depending on the goal. So now we have a rough schema > with two elements that applies to all of the above and allows sharing of > common data. > > Now, we just need to define some subset elements that help make use of > any extra work that we agree is desireable, and makes the least re- > classification work for all of us. At some point, we will need to stop > and the schemas will depart from each other, because clearly most > genealogists don't need the expanded subsets that sociologists or > anthropologists want, but at least up to a point we can share common data > and discard what we don't want. Then, it becomes a question of who has > the schema which best fits my use, or otherwise benefits me to share data > with. > > And, an anthropologist can ignore an element called an individual and > have two elements (Swedes and Mingos) that genealogists will remap as two > "indivdual" elements. If we like we can use the fact that they have been > classified by an anthropologist as two distintions by adding the info as > an (insert appropriate label here) attribute of our "individual" element. > >>Cheryl >> >> >> >> -- 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

What I find a bit disconcerting with GPS measurements is the question of datums. Different measurements may be relative to different dataums. For instance on Google Maps, the Greenwich meridian and 0 degrees longitude do not coincide. Has any one found cases of confusion and inaccuaracy in practice, such as not correctly locating a grave? Peter

"Dennis Lee Bieber" <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:13m4eefmegn7p1b@corp.supernews.com... > And you /should/ reference to some distinctive, and unlike to move, > landmark, as just recording a lat/long (or UTM) directly from the GPS > unit can still be off up to 10meters (though with WAAS and clear sky, > more likely the extreme drift is 3-5meter). Even a 5m error for your > recorded position, combined with a 5m error for someone coming back next > year, could result is their position being 30 feet away from where you > were standing... Outstanding suggestion! What you are doing is creating a local GPS corrector. Even if GPS were to go back to the +-100m induced error you would still be able to locate the item (momument, grave, etc) by offset from the major landmark. If you combine this with the use of UTM the math becomes very simple. "OK the fountain was YYYY, XXXX, now it's -10m +7m we just adjust the grave position the same amount and here we are... Hello great grandma. How you been?" -- Donald R. Newcomb DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

"Peter J Seymour" <moz@pjsey.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:fk04pr$4n9$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk... > What I find a bit disconcerting with GPS measurements is the question of > datums. Different measurements may be relative to different dataums. For > instance on Google Maps, the Greenwich meridian and 0 degrees longitude > do not coincide. Has any one found cases of confusion and inaccuaracy in > practice, such as not correctly locating a grave? Welcome to the wonderful world of geodesy. Different datums do not exist just for fun. They came about because the original geodetic surveys that established the shape of the earth were not connected to each other. Thus, each country (continent) would use which ever spheroid (datum) best fit their local situation. Only when the shape of earth could be measured using satellites were we able to develop spheroidal models that provided a best fit for the entire earth, rather than just for a particular region. ITMT, all those legal property surveys were done and maps published using the existing local datums. So, countries couldn't just toss out the old datum when a better one came along. This means that the latitude and longitude of an object measured in the local datum (e.g. Tokyo, Gauss) can be as much as SEVERAL HUNDRED METERS removed from the same position described in a geocentric datum such as WGS84. For this reason surveyor will ALWAYS include information about the datum used on any survey he performs. ALL accurate maps (topographic, navigation, etc) have information about the datums and projections used. There is no way around this until the entire world adopts a single datum and converts all the old maps, plats, etc to that datum. That's the bad news. The good news is that the North American Datum (NAD27) that has been in use for US maps since 1927 is pretty close to the WGS84 (World Geodetic System 1984) datum used by GPS at least over most of North America. The best policy for recording the position of anything located by GPS is to always also record the datum used. You also need to understand that nothing is ever positioned exactly, never, ever. There is always an error, although in some cases the error can be made very small. When using GPS you should also record the error. (e.g. +-25m). -- Donald R. Newcomb DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

Tony Proctor wrote: >> Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote in >>> Tony Proctor wrote: >>>> As a contrived illustration, consider some free-form notes that >>>> wanted to reference a person's name, address during a particular >>>> year, and the date they moved there: >>>> >>>> <Person("Anthony Proctor")> lives in <Person("Tony >>>> Proctor").Address("2007-10-01").Country> and moved there in >>>> <Event("ProctorMove").Year> >>>> >>> I and many others have thought about ways to tag words and phrases >>> in free-form text with XML tags and attributes to carry the linking >>> information. But as far as I know, none of us have ever actually >>> produced a working implementation. > > Interestingly Wes, the snippet of my post that you quote here has nothing to > do with XML. Although I did mention XML somewhere, it was to point out the You offered an example of tagging parts of text in an "XML-like" style, so I thought I'd mention that others had had similar idea--similar to that _part_ of your ideas. > inappropriateness of it since it's designed for hierarchical data, and > family relationships are not hierarchical - they're a "network". XML and HTML are hierarchical in structure, as is GEDCOM. BUT all three do have cross-referencing mechanisms. -- Wes Groleau ---- The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson

singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote in news:jNednT_yeK_HMv_anZ2dnUVZ_tGonZ2d@rcn.net: > Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:26:20 -0500, singhals <singhals@erols.com> >> declaimed the following in soc.genealogy.computing: >> >> >>>Which models in which brands will allow me to retrieve >>>lat/lon a week after I mark the spot? Not all of 'em do, >>>apparently. >>> >> >> Every GPS unit I've owned (and I'm up to my fourth generation >> unit >> now) retained all way points until manually deleted by the user. > > Yeah, it'll show me the street address and the map location, > but NOT the lat/lon. > Maybe the GPS's you've seen/used were dedicated to streets & driving directions? Only a guess, because my Magellan Explorist 210 is for hiking & geocaching and everything it does is based on the lat/lon or other selected format of N-S-E-W position. The waypoints & points of interest stay in the unit until you erase them or write over them in the case of breadcrumbs, but even the breadcrumbs can be saved to the internal memory storage. And for what it's worth, Google maps, Google earth & others give you (and you can search by) lat/lon coords. Try this: 1. Go to http://maps.google.com/maps and 2. type this into the search box: 39.170098,-76.67362 then 3. click on the Satellite button on the map and zoom in as far as you can. (It's the cenetery at the end of Runway 4 at BWI airport). The coords came from me visually finding the airport in Google maps, zooming in to the max and centering the map, then clicking the "Link this page" and copying the link info with coords. >> >> The /number/ of retained way points varied -- I think my first >> unit >> could hold 50 way points and one route of 20 or 30 of those points. >> My current unit has some 500-1000 way points, and between 20-50 >> routes of 30 or 50 way points each. >> >> A GPS unit without way points is basically useless -- it can >> show >> you where you are NOW, but can not guide you to a location. >> >> Took me forever to clear out stray way points on my last trip to >> the >> former ConiFur NorthWest (furry convention)... I had the GPS plugged >> into a Kenwood D7 radio running in APRS (automatic position reporting >> system); Every 2 minutes my call-sign and position, as retrieved from >> the GPS, were transmitted, and as I recall the call-sign and position >> of any received signals were recorded as way points on the GPS [It's >> been five years so memory could be wrong -- maybe it was just the >> radio message log that took forever to clear out]. >> >> For a new GPS unit, in CONUS, things to look for: 12-channel >> parallel receiver (really old units -- my first -- were 8-channel >> sequential). WAAS enabled. Desirable features: averaging (you leave >> the unit on in averaging mode for some time without moving it and it >> refines the location over time, rather than having instantaneous >> position that changes with each update as the NAVSTAR birds move in >> orbit) >> >> I'd also suggest using UTM rather than Lat/Long... Since UTM is >> a >> metric readout, you can easily compute things like: 10 meters true >> north of "xyz mausoleum gate", 5 meters east... a description easier >> to visualize than a pair of lat/long values that differ in some >> decimal place -- especially as an arc minute of longitude at the >> equator is about a nautical mile, but maybe only half a nautical mile >> at latitude 60 (and only a few inches near the pole) > > Except, I _understand_ lat/lon (g). > >> >> And you /should/ reference to some distinctive, and unlike to >> move, >> landmark, as just recording a lat/long (or UTM) directly from the GPS >> unit can still be off up to 10meters (though with WAAS and clear sky, >> more likely the extreme drift is 3-5meter). Even a 5m error for your >> recorded position, combined with a 5m error for someone coming back >> next year, could result is their position being 30 feet away from >> where you were standing... >> >> GPS1...............Actual >> your 5m error Actual...............GPS2 >> a year later >> >> 30 feet could be a LOT of graves! > > Understood. In my primary interest case, if you can get > within 30 ft you ought to see the fence ... and it ought to > still be there, it was built to LAST. > >> >> Using UTM with a reference landmark means that the GPS2 person >> can >> compare their reading to your record and determine "I'm reading 10 >> meters to the east of the recorded values... so if I add 10 to the >> recorded UTM eastings, I get numbers that my unit should display >> today" (I emphasize the "today" as even a few hours could result in >> drift) > > There's a stream nearby but nothing else guaranteed not to > change in the next decade. S'why I'm so anxious to get a > lat/lon on the place. They're talking about re-routing a > major road and if they do I might not find the place again > without lat/lon. > > Cheryl

singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote in news:woCdnRKY5oEFNv_anZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@rcn.net: <snip> >> >> (Feel free to ignore me, I'm new here.) :-) > > We can tell. ;) > What else besides my admission gave it away? :-) > However -- if I'm recording bits of evidence about everyone > in a community, I'm writing a community history, NOT a > family genealogy. If I'm writing in the abstract about one > family's interactions with another, it's sociology not > genealogy. If I'm writing about how the Mingo interacted > with the Swedes, it's anthropology, not genealogy. > > Yes..exactly. But they all use "individuals" (with attributes) and another element you're calling "evidence" (with attributes), but differing criteria used to "connect" either the individual elements or the other elements depending on the goal. So now we have a rough schema with two elements that applies to all of the above and allows sharing of common data. Now, we just need to define some subset elements that help make use of any extra work that we agree is desireable, and makes the least re- classification work for all of us. At some point, we will need to stop and the schemas will depart from each other, because clearly most genealogists don't need the expanded subsets that sociologists or anthropologists want, but at least up to a point we can share common data and discard what we don't want. Then, it becomes a question of who has the schema which best fits my use, or otherwise benefits me to share data with. And, an anthropologist can ignore an element called an individual and have two elements (Swedes and Mingos) that genealogists will remap as two "indivdual" elements. If we like we can use the fact that they have been classified by an anthropologist as two distintions by adding the info as an (insert appropriate label here) attribute of our "individual" element. > > Cheryl > > > >

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:30:46 -0500, singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: > >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:26:20 -0500, singhals <singhals@erols.com> >> wrote: >> >> >>>I know some of you are using GPS units to locate graves, >>>cemeteries, old homesteads, and the like. >>> >>>I'd like one to use for exactly those purposes. >>> >>>Which models in which brands will allow me to retrieve >>>lat/lon a week after I mark the spot? Not all of 'em do, >>>apparently. >> >> >>>Cheryl >> >> >> I have never used mine to locate a grave site. I have county maps and >> graveyards are marked on them. If a site is found that is not on the >> map marking can be done manually. >> >> Three brands are popular for cars, Garmin, Tom-Tom and Magellan. The >> type that is used in the car may not be what you want for lat/lon. >> >> Or, you can do what we did when fishing years ago - when you find a >> good fishing hole, mark an "X" on the side of the boat. 8-) >> >> Merry Christmas and Happy New Year Louisiana Gal. >> >> Hugh > > >:) I'll share that wisdom wid my Cajun fr'en comin today, yes. > >Joyeux Noel a vous tout. > >Cheryl Marecy Buttercups while I cherchez moi femme. Hugh

"Bob Velke" <bvelke@whollygenes.com> wrote in message news:mailman.728.1197649963.4586.gencmp@rootsweb.com... > Kurt said: > > >As the Swedish State Church was responsible of keeping track of all > >inhabitants in every parish, the records written at the time of the > >fact are quite reliable. And as the priest himself did the baptism, he > >knew the name of the child firsthand. It was the priest that wed the > >couple and the priest that buried a dead. > > Thank you for your analysis of the evidence. > > A favorable analysis of the evidence, however, is still an analysis > of the evidence. > > Bob Velke > Wholly Genes Software Whatever... Kurt F

singhals wrote: > > I have an unmarked, tiny, family cemetery, the location of which is > currently known to fewer than a dozen living beings. I want to get the > lat/lon on record somewhere in my data so that 50 or 60 years from now > after my cousin and I lose touch my side of the family can find it again. > > We were talking at a party t'other night and turns out none of us have a > GPS unit that will allow us to RETRIEVE the lat/lon afterward. All will > show us the point we marked, all will provide driving directions, all > _record_ the lat/lon for internal use, but NONE would let us see it a > 2nd time. > Why not just mark the location on Google Earth and print out the map? Or for that matter mark it on a local topographical map?

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:31:26 GMT, JD <jd4x4@<del.this>verizon.net> wrote: >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:26:20 -0500, singhals <singhals@erols.com> >> wrote: >> >>>I know some of you are using GPS units to locate graves, >>>cemeteries, old homesteads, and the like. >>> >>>I'd like one to use for exactly those purposes. >>> >>>Which models in which brands will allow me to retrieve >>>lat/lon a week after I mark the spot? Not all of 'em do, >>>apparently. >> >>>Cheryl >> > >You might want to check into the digital cameras and camera add-ons that >record the GPS coords directly to the image file. I've never used one and >the cameras might still be a bit higher cost (I don't really know, though), >but I think that would be the easiest/quickest for any real amount of >records. I do know that my Magellan Explorist 210 will save the info in a >point of interest (POI), waypoints, or in it's "breadcrumbs" (track log), >but like most GPS's it isn't that quick or easy to navigate through to >either get the info out of, or to tag each waypoint or breadcrumb with some >meaningful info for later. It's perfectly fine if you just want the coords >for a whole cemetery, but you could use Google or MapQuest for that anyhow. Another day that I learned something. Thanks. Hugh

kraut wrote: > Will Family Tree Maker 2008 run on Win 98se?? > > I tryed it and could not get it to run. Kept getting some message > about debugging something. Finally went back to 2006 version. No not ever 2006 or FTM 16 are still more useful SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS Minimum system requirements: Operating system: Windows XP / Vista Processor: 500 MHz Intel Pentium II (or equivalent) Hard disk space: 400 MB for installation Memory: 256 MB of RAM Display: 800 x 600 resolution for monitor 2X CD-ROM (required for installation) Recommended system requirements: Operating system: Windows XP/Vista Processor: 1GHz Intel Pentium III (or equivalent) Hard disk space: 400 MB for installation Memory: 512 MB of RAM Display: 1024 x 768 resolution for monitor 32X CD/CD-R (required for installation) All online features require Internet access Training video and Our History in Images require DVD-ROM drive try reading the box next time :-) 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

Cooperation and quality in Wikipedia (LINK REFERENCE DESCRIPTION) were evaluated from a study done by the Information Dynamics Laboratory, Hewlett-Packard Labs, using as raw data, all 55.3 million edits to English Wikipedia edition, from beginning of JAN 01 to 2 NOV 06. Conclusion: Wikipedia high-quality articles can be distinguished by the "larger number of edits and distinct editors . . .", with "more intense patterns of cooperation". http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/idl/papers/wikipedia/wikipedia07.pdf Respectfully yours, Tom Tinney, Sr. Who's Who in America, Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004 Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions] Family Genealogy & History Internet Education Directory http://www.academic-genealogy.com/

> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:26:20 -0500, singhals <singhals@erols.com> > wrote: > >>I know some of you are using GPS units to locate graves, >>cemeteries, old homesteads, and the like. >> >>I'd like one to use for exactly those purposes. >> >>Which models in which brands will allow me to retrieve >>lat/lon a week after I mark the spot? Not all of 'em do, >>apparently. > >>Cheryl > You might want to check into the digital cameras and camera add-ons that record the GPS coords directly to the image file. I've never used one and the cameras might still be a bit higher cost (I don't really know, though), but I think that would be the easiest/quickest for any real amount of records. I do know that my Magellan Explorist 210 will save the info in a point of interest (POI), waypoints, or in it's "breadcrumbs" (track log), but like most GPS's it isn't that quick or easy to navigate through to either get the info out of, or to tag each waypoint or breadcrumb with some meaningful info for later. It's perfectly fine if you just want the coords for a whole cemetery, but you could use Google or MapQuest for that anyhow.

This site really was a surprise. Also check out http://www.christmasplayland.com that features over 7000 retailers and services.It even has a large employment search section as well.

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:26:20 -0500, singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: >I know some of you are using GPS units to locate graves, >cemeteries, old homesteads, and the like. > >I'd like one to use for exactly those purposes. > >Which models in which brands will allow me to retrieve >lat/lon a week after I mark the spot? Not all of 'em do, >apparently. >Cheryl I have never used mine to locate a grave site. I have county maps and graveyards are marked on them. If a site is found that is not on the map marking can be done manually. Three brands are popular for cars, Garmin, Tom-Tom and Magellan. The type that is used in the car may not be what you want for lat/lon. Or, you can do what we did when fishing years ago - when you find a good fishing hole, mark an "X" on the side of the boat. 8-) Merry Christmas and Happy New Year Louisiana Gal. Hugh