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 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1183 - Release Date: 12/13/2007 9:15 AM

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

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. > > 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

"JD verizon.net>" <jd4x4@<del.this> wrote in message news:Xns9A04C51031446jd4x4verizonnet@199.45.49.11... > Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote in > news:jGBMi.1175$P06.1062@trnddc05: > > > 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> > >> > >> All this sample serves to show is the generality of the use of a > >> mark-up language, and how those tags can generate both display text > >> (for reading) and a hyperlink to the associated in-memory object, or > >> to other references to it. What you see on the screen might be > >> simply: > >> > >> Tony Proctor lives in Ireland and moved there in 2002 > > > > 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. > > > > Hi all. A quick background- I spent my life in the automotive industry, as > a tech as well as a technical training editor. My last 5 years were spent > trying to understand & use XML as it related to getting technical info in > this format and then publishing training course materials. I see a lot of > discussion about XML here, and wanted to share my thoughts about it. I see > XML as a complex subject, but usually misunderstood. I don't claim to > understand it completely myself, but what I have learned gives me a LOT of > respect for how brilliant it is in it's concept... simplicity and > flexibility. > > The discussions I see here are similar to industry experience of having to > adopt XML when dealing with U.S. government processes & regulations that > require it. What it forces (in a nutshell) is one to think about what > information they deal with, from whom, and what they want to finally use it > for. It forces organization & categorization that isn't restrained by any > one use. It does it by the standardization of a)the raw data format (ASCII > text and use of "tags" <> and </> ) and b)a structure that requires the > definition of it's elements be shared (by a schema, or document > definition... the "rules"). > > I think that the key to using XML is to make sure that ALL of the data can > be "tagged" with at least enough structure that nothing can be "lost" > (unless someone wants to loose it!). What everyone struggles with is their > own "subset" of tag requirements, but usually there is enough agreement > among everyone about a core set of tags that everything will fit into. > That's where the beauty of XML and schemas come into play.. anyone can > define their own "tags" and even share them as long as they share their > "schema". You either use their schema, or you produce a subset that at > least conforms to the basic set of tags. In order to use data that is only > broadly defined & tagged, you need to then create your own schema, based on > your well thought out & DEFINED criteria. XML authoring, presentation and > storage software is designed to "force" your rules on the data set while > keeping the core tags and/or ensuring that your data can be "remapped" back > into the core set without loss. > > What's being discussed are actually several "fine points", all of which are > a bit irrelevant to XML itself (ahh.. the beauty again!). Some are > discussing XML as a transport (which it can be called), some as a storage > method (which it can be), some as a language (which it can also be), some > as an organization structure (yup, that too). But really what it IS, is > meta-data.. literally data about data. Labels and attributes. A system to > attach labels and attributes to data, at their simplest as well as most > complex levels of use. If you don't categorize and use data like I do, then > at least we can share it if we both agree on it's most basic & common > meaning. Obviously if I spend time in refining my data in great details, > and you think it's just swell that way and saves you a lot of effort, then > I've already tagged it for you to use right out of the box. If not, you can > just use the data with my more broadly defined tags. You can even "remap" > my tags with your own schema and rules. > > XML at LEAST provides a structure for sharing & understanding how someone's > data is organized, and allows for sharing it without loss or regard to how > someone else wants to use it. > > Hee, hee.. the RULES. THAT's the hard part. XML is the easy, logical part. > > (I think XML may be the key to the universe if we can only understand it, > rather than just use it) :-) 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 inappropriateness of it since it's designed for hierarchical data, and family relationships are not hierarchical - they're a "network". The snippet you quoted was me making a case for a new rich-text mark-up language that could represent any number of embedded data types (including all the variations, and "fuzziness", mentioned by other researchers here), and that would create 'live objects' from those references when the text was loaded into a viewer. Those live objects could then support all sorts of possibilities, e.g. cross-referencing, correlation, navigation. I did take some time aside from my paid day-job to experiment with this idea, and the results were very inspiring. It felt like it could have implications for almost any sort of textual storage system. The basic principles are generic and not specific to genealogy Tony Proctor

singhals 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 Thanks, all. 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. Cheryl

JD <jd4x4@ wrote: > JD <jd4x4@<del.this>verizon.net> wrote in > news:Xns9A06C59E6708jd4x4verizonnet@199.45.49.11: > > >>What's really impossible is to think that there is one schema that can >>do it all. The data is what it is, no more, no less. Just as I used a > > > What I meant to say here was that what was impossible is one fixed > attribute structure could do it all (meet all needs/wants/criteria), not > one schema. > > By it's very nature an XML schema can expand & vary, but it's all tied > together as a record set by some common attribute(s). > > In fact, the more I think about it and read some of the conversations here, > the more I think that what should really happen is that relationships > between individuals should NEVER be part of the genealogy data set! > Associations to other individuals should be done by software and/or user > selection of criteria, based on an individual's association with another > element (citation; document, "event", personal account, etc- each with a > set of variable weightings), and multiples/matrices of these elements. And, > that these criteria sets should be XML conformant and loadable/saveable. > > That seems to me to be the only way to split data from decisions, allow for > varying decision types & thresholds, and still allow for software to > automate & aid the process. > > (Feel free to ignore me, I'm new here.) :-) We can tell. ;) 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. Cheryl

"Ian Goddard" <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:9e2dnbFzaYTmKfzanZ2dnUVZ8t2snZ2d@pipex.net... > Kurt wrote: > > "Bob Velke" <bvelke@whollygenes.com> wrote in message > > news:mailman.673.1197574268.4586.gencmp@rootsweb.com... > >> Kurt said: > >> > >>> I for myself is only recording facts. For that the current programs > >>> are sufficient. > >>> As I am a Swede, I have the church books for births, weddings and > >>> deaths as primary sources. They were written at the time of the > > event. > >> So that makes them facts? > > > > You are making me curious. What is a fact for you? It must be > > something in the English language that I miss... > > > > That something was written down at the time is a fact. That it > accurately records what the writer was told is, we hope, also a fact. > That the writer told the truth is not always a fact; sometimes > informants were mistaken and sometimes they told lies. I think we really doesnŽt disagree. 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. In that sense we are fortunate in Swedish research. Kurt F > > -- > Ian

JD <jd4x4@ wrote: > Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in > news:fjrft2$vj3$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu: > > >>XML is like ISO 9000/9001: it it form without meaning or purpose. >>It is basically meaningless. It is in the same category as >>"proofs" that a computer program is "correct" ... based on >>some "requirement" that itself could be buggy as can be. >> > > > Wow. I'm not sure where to start. One of the primary benefits that I see > with XML is that (one of) it's purposes is structure, yet flexibility to > adapt and extend. The second would be that definitions are known (by > virtue of the <shudder> structure of the schema document) by anyone who > wants to use the data. -see more about that below.. > > >>What matters is not the form but the meaning. And I seriously doubt >>that the genealogy community will agree to one straitjacket >>format for meaning, that is, structure. Will FTM and TMG agree > > > Certainly everyone can agree on items such as Name, Date, Source, Notes, > Comments, etc. > Yes?? No. Cheryl

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:11:02 -0500, kraut <NewsGroupsPlease@NewsGroupsPlease.org> wrote in soc.genealogy.computing: > >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. Microsoft stopped to support Win 98 this year. This means among other things that they won't include Win 98 support in the softwares they are selling, including for instances the libraries that can be used by genealogy softwares. A recent software made from Microsoft compilers or libraries won't run on Win 98 or 98SE while if it is made with 3rd party development tools, it more likely will run. Denis -- 0 Denis Beauregard - /\/ Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/ |\ French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/ / | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1770 (Version 2008) oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginnings to 1770 (2008 Release)

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. TIA

Wasn't it Dennis Lee Bieber who wrote: > 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 Or perhaps use both. UTM for such descriptions and Lat/Lng for mapping using on-line mapping services, like: http://maps.google.com/?q=GGFather's+Grave@53.846395,-3.021857&t=k&z=19 Such mapping services may also have an inaccuracy of a few feet in places like Europe and the USA (and considerably greater inaccuracies in countries which are not accurately surveyed) and the error varies each time there's a new release of the imagery, so you'll still need a description. -- Mike Williams Gentleman of Leisure

JD <jd4x4@<del.this>verizon.net> wrote in news:Xns9A06C59E6708jd4x4verizonnet@199.45.49.11: > What's really impossible is to think that there is one schema that can > do it all. The data is what it is, no more, no less. Just as I used a What I meant to say here was that what was impossible is one fixed attribute structure could do it all (meet all needs/wants/criteria), not one schema. By it's very nature an XML schema can expand & vary, but it's all tied together as a record set by some common attribute(s). In fact, the more I think about it and read some of the conversations here, the more I think that what should really happen is that relationships between individuals should NEVER be part of the genealogy data set! Associations to other individuals should be done by software and/or user selection of criteria, based on an individual's association with another element (citation; document, "event", personal account, etc- each with a set of variable weightings), and multiples/matrices of these elements. And, that these criteria sets should be XML conformant and loadable/saveable. That seems to me to be the only way to split data from decisions, allow for varying decision types & thresholds, and still allow for software to automate & aid the process. (Feel free to ignore me, I'm new here.) :-)

Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in news:fjrft2$vj3$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu: > XML is like ISO 9000/9001: it it form without meaning or purpose. > It is basically meaningless. It is in the same category as > "proofs" that a computer program is "correct" ... based on > some "requirement" that itself could be buggy as can be. > Wow. I'm not sure where to start. One of the primary benefits that I see with XML is that (one of) it's purposes is structure, yet flexibility to adapt and extend. The second would be that definitions are known (by virtue of the <shudder> structure of the schema document) by anyone who wants to use the data. -see more about that below.. > What matters is not the form but the meaning. And I seriously doubt > that the genealogy community will agree to one straitjacket > format for meaning, that is, structure. Will FTM and TMG agree Certainly everyone can agree on items such as Name, Date, Source, Notes, Comments, etc. Yes?? > to change their basic workings so they are the same? That will > be necessary of they are to share data in an exact perfect > match manner. If at least a basic XML schema is agreed on and XML used in any fashion, at the very least it would be an exchange standard. At the best it would comply with the XML intent that it accept a new schema document without harming or loosing the original data structure, and allow for the same data set to be used by a differing piece of software that might make use of "expanded" sets of tags. > > In genealogy there really is only one single absolute given, > at least, if one attributes the meaning of "is" to mean > "born before DNA technology on people". That is, > a given person, going back in time, has a binary > tree of ancestors, exactly two per generation, with possible > coelescence. (Now, these days, of course, a person can have two > mothers: the autosomal/X mother and the mitochondrial mother .. and > this doesn't fit with that model!). There are quite a few "absolutes", I think. What differs is exactly as you say- How completely & correctly people enter the "absolute" values (XML can help with this- if nothing more than to show you that there is an empty "hole" in the needed data, and that it wasn't just forgotten or missing in the export), and how people put two and two together (XML can help here as well with a schema that only does what it is supposed to to- classify the data, not analyze or manipulate it). > > Beyond that some programs may tie things to "events" > or "extra types of so-called 'parents'", etc. and they > are just not going to agree on how. > Software and user preference should be the only forces that draw conclusions, and those conclusions shouldn't change the data (the facts), or the description of what the data is. > The whole idea of portability of dats is impossible. > What's really impossible is to think that there is one schema that can do it all. The data is what it is, no more, no less. Just as I used a subset of my automotive data (that was mainly meant for engineers) to publish training materials (not build them from scratch), you just need a schema that at it's most basic level allows for tagging ALL of the data, and increasingly refines the data into more and more granular bits that don't differ, rather expand on the more basic tag. And, if I add data to your set to suit my purposes, you may choose to ignore it because you put cars together, not tear them apart. My uses and yours are complimentary, not exclusionary. You would just ignore my training data. At the end of the day, if you I may not agree with the criteria that you accept for relationships, but I would accept that you got someone's name and statement that they had an offspring if you tell me where you got it from. Then, it's really up to me (and you) to decide if that connects us, isn't it? None of that changes the data itself. Unless you made a typo :-) > Doug McDonald

Gordo wrote: > This movement for an XML version of GEDCOM has been going on for years. It > is too bad that some organization or coalition doesn't or can't come to an > agreement on a specification. Yes, it will take some training and Nitpick: GEDCOM 6.0 _is_ an "XML version of GEDCOM" Why is it not popular? Because it is merely an XML version of GEDCOM. A different and more bulky way of representing the SAME data model. Why should I rewrite my program if there is no change to my users and a negative effect on interoperability? -- Wes Groleau Change is inevitable. Conservatives should learn that "inevitable" is not a synonym for "bad." Liberals need to learn that "inevitable" is not a synonym for "good." -- WWG

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message news:579aba504f.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk... > In message of 13 Dec, "Kurt" <kurt.fredriksson@ieee.org> wrote: > > > I for myself is only recording facts. For that the current programs > > are sufficient. As I am a Swede, I have the church books for births, > > weddings and deaths as primary sources. They were written at the time > > of the event. > > I do hope your church books are a bit better that the ones we have in > England as they only give the bare names. Further for births, the early > ones don't give the mother and the marriages do not give the parents of > either party nor the location of the bridegroom. This can make it very > difficult to be sure that you have identified the right person. It varies. Some of the early birth books only gives the male name. If it exists Household examination books for the year of birth, you can find the female there. If not, then it is a dead end. For marriages there normally is the names of the couple and the date of the marriage. Normally the marriage took place in the brides home parish. As we used patronymics in Sweden, you can normally use them to determine the correct parents. But, of course, it fails now and then. > > When there is no church books, I stop. > > Why? Some other documents that survive from the person's lifetime can > be just as meaningful and sometimes a lot more so. As most of my ancestors didnŽt own land, there isnŽt many documents. The court records are only available in the archive and I havenŽt been too interested yet to spend time on them (500 km travel and cost for hotel). > > That makes it possible for me to get to around 1650 for some lines, > > but mostly to around 1700. > > From a false premise follows a false conclusion? No, I only include persons I am dead sure about. If in trouble with a person, I can follow him/her from the birth book, through the Household examination books until death. Sometimes you have to start from the death and sometimes from the birth. And sometimes both ways. It is a happy moment when the two lines meet at the same spot. Sometimes the church books has been destroyed in a fire, which leaves a dead end. > > I leave the going back 6-700 years to the novelists. > > Again you may not have the marvellous survival of early records that we > have in England. But we have wills from the thirteenth century onwards, > marriage settlements certainly since the 12th century, law court cases > disputing succession by inheritance also since the 12th century. > Finally all house owners had to have a big box of all the deeds > conveying the house from person to person over the centuries as this > proved their ownership; another resource. These are not the material of > novelists and it is perfectly possible to establish reasonably valid > ancestries well back to the eleventh century, notably to some of the > 36,000 people recorded in Domesday. I envy you. > -- > Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org > For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

"Bob Velke" <bvelke@whollygenes.com> wrote in message news:mailman.673.1197574268.4586.gencmp@rootsweb.com... > Kurt said: > > >I for myself is only recording facts. For that the current programs > >are sufficient. > >As I am a Swede, I have the church books for births, weddings and > >deaths as primary sources. They were written at the time of the event. > > So that makes them facts? You are making me curious. What is a fact for you? It must be something in the English language that I miss... > I'm glad that you have found a genealogy program which apparently > thinks of genealogy data the same way you do. So am I. > Bob Velke > Wholly Genes Software

Kurt wrote: > "Bob Velke" <bvelke@whollygenes.com> wrote in message > news:mailman.673.1197574268.4586.gencmp@rootsweb.com... >> Kurt said: >> >>> I for myself is only recording facts. For that the current programs >>> are sufficient. >>> As I am a Swede, I have the church books for births, weddings and >>> deaths as primary sources. They were written at the time of the > event. >> So that makes them facts? > > You are making me curious. What is a fact for you? It must be > something in the English language that I miss... > That something was written down at the time is a fact. That it accurately records what the writer was told is, we hope, also a fact. That the writer told the truth is not always a fact; sometimes informants were mistaken and sometimes they told lies. -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk

Doug McDonald wrote: > Bob Velke wrote: > > Genealogy is about recording parentage. It tells who begat whom. > That is the core. Nothing can change this, it is the absolute > basis. > I have an ancestor who was born in 1753. His age at death makes that quite clear. There were two individuals of that name born in that year. For one of them the father's name is unequivocal. For the other there are two possible individuals of the same name and generation as the father. There are no good criteria for deciding between these two 1753 individuals is my ancestor nor between the three individuals in the previous generation. I cannot square this situation with your ideas of absolutism. > >> It is about recording and evaluating _evidence_. And evidence doesn't >> play by such neat and tidy rules. >> >> > > Recording evidence is secondary. Did you really mean that? To me this implies that evidence is secondary. Evidence is *primary*. Take the situation I outlines above. There are a number of items of evidence in the form of entries in the baptismal, marriage and burial registers for the parish and in some cases, surviving chapelry records. If anything approaches the absolute this is it. But there are three possible lines of descent. Evidence is primary. Historical reconstructions of individuals are interpretations. Reconstructions of parentage are interpretations of interpretations. -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk

Kurt said: >You are making me curious. What is a fact for you? It must be >something in the English language that I miss... A fact for me is something that I observe with my own eyes - and even that is subject to variables like my memory, note-taking skills, etc. And (Doug), I rarely observe the act of parentage <g>. Everything else is evidence which is subject to my interpretation and analysis. Bob Velke Wholly Genes Software -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.1/1182 - Release Date: 12/12/2007 11:29 AM

In message of 13 Dec, "Kurt" <kurt.fredriksson@ieee.org> wrote: > I for myself is only recording facts. For that the current programs > are sufficient. As I am a Swede, I have the church books for births, > weddings and deaths as primary sources. They were written at the time > of the event. I do hope your church books are a bit better that the ones we have in England as they only give the bare names. Further for births, the early ones don't give the mother and the marriages do not give the parents of either party nor the location of the bridegroom. This can make it very difficult to be sure that you have identified the right person. > When there is no church books, I stop. Why? Some other documents that survive from the person's lifetime can be just as meaningful and sometimes a lot more so. > That makes it possible for me to get to around 1650 for some lines, > but mostly to around 1700. >From a false premise follows a false conclusion? > I leave the going back 6-700 years to the novelists. Again you may not have the marvellous survival of early records that we have in England. But we have wills from the thirteenth century onwards, marriage settlements certainly since the 12th century, law court cases disputing succession by inheritance also since the 12th century. Finally all house owners had to have a big box of all the deeds conveying the house from person to person over the centuries as this proved their ownership; another resource. These are not the material of novelists and it is perfectly possible to establish reasonably valid ancestries well back to the eleventh century, notably to some of the 36,000 people recorded in Domesday. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/