> > Cheryl made the point that she would keep a link to that file or URL in > > a person record in her database. My question was directed to the > > situation where you don't yet have such a person record to hold the link. > Then I create a person-record/persona for it. Hence the > dozen or so different entries with a single name. I agree. > > My preferred approach is to codify that evidence into new persona > > records and let them be sit in the database while you collect more data. > > These persona records are indexed and searchable and manipulable > > and editable as easily as regular person records. > Apparently, you're calling what I do "codifying"; I call it > saving. Codify simply means to be systematic. To create those persona records you have to take information found in evidence and systematically create persona records from it. > > I personally find that this simple mechanism solves all problems > > I have with designing a single system that can seamlessly handle > > both record-based and person-based genealogy. I just need the > > software to give the UI to do this. What's not mentioned here, is what happens with the personas when you decide who they are. The usual answer is to 1) merge the data in the persona record into the person record if the person record already exists; or 2) create the first version of a new person record from the persona record. Merging is key. This is the main thing I object to. I want the personas to maintain their integrity/identity for all time, since they are the extracted from of original evidence. This is why I replace the merging operation with a tree-building operation. This tree is not the genealogical pedigree tree, it is the tree of records that represent the same person. The leaves of this person tree are the persona records. The other nodes are the person records. Tom

Tom Wetmore wrote: > >>> Cheryl made the point that she would keep a link to that file or URL in >>> a person record in her database. My question was directed to the >>> situation where you don't yet have such a person record to hold the link. > >> Then I create a person-record/persona for it. Hence the >> dozen or so different entries with a single name. > > I agree. > >>> My preferred approach is to codify that evidence into new persona >>> records and let them be sit in the database while you collect more data. >>> These persona records are indexed and searchable and manipulable >>> and editable as easily as regular person records. > >> Apparently, you're calling what I do "codifying"; I call it >> saving. > > Codify simply means to be systematic. To create those persona records you > have to take information found in evidence and systematically create > persona records from it. > >>> I personally find that this simple mechanism solves all problems >>> I have with designing a single system that can seamlessly handle >>> both record-based and person-based genealogy. I just need the >>> software to give the UI to do this. > > What's not mentioned here, is what happens with the personas when > you decide who they are. The usual answer is to 1) merge the data in > the persona record into the person record if the person record > already exists; or 2) create the first version of a new person record > from the persona record. Merging is key. This is the main thing I > object to. I want the personas to maintain their integrity/identity for > all time, since they are the extracted from of original evidence. This > is why I replace the merging operation with a tree-building > operation. This tree is not the genealogical pedigree tree, it is > the tree of records that represent the same person. The leaves of > this person tree are the persona records. The other nodes are the > person records. WHY would I want to keep them separate once I've decided they're the same person? My bc, my mc, and my son's bc all refer to ME as ME; what would be the POINT of keeping ME in there 3 times? Cheryl