singhals wrote: > singhals wrote: >> Tom Wetmore wrote: >>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 12:40:54 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote: >>>> On 05-24-2011 16:26, Tom Wetmore wrote: >>>>> That doesn't solve the problem of where to store those links. As Cheryl >>>>> points out, if you put a link in a person record, you are making the >>>>> explicit statement that the linked-to evidence refers to that person. >>>> >>>> Always? Many programs support some variation of GEDCOM's TYPE tag. >>>> >>>> No reason a link couldn't have a TYPE subrecord, or a NOTE or .... >>>> Even if GEDCOM doesn't officially support it. >>>> >>>> Maybe some software out there somewhere has tried that. >>>> >>>> (Please don't take my comments as an enthusiastic endorsement >>>> of GEDCOM) >>>> >>> Wes, >>> >>> I wasn't clear enough. The idea I was getting at is this. You have found >>> an item of evidence that you either copy onto your computer as a file >>> or you have as a URL text string. You are pretty sure this evidence refers >>> to a person you are interested in, but you haven't gotten enough info >>> yet to be sure of this or to know exactly what person it refers to. >>> >>> 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. >> >>> 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. >> >>> 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. >> >> PAF produces a UID for each entry; I'm pretty certain other >> programs do to, particularly the ones that allow >> synchronization of multiple databases. > > Well color me surprised. > > PAF and Legacy both assign a UID, which one can see in the GED. > > Oddly enough, and despite what I've heard said, when I > imported the PAF file into a LEGACY file (direct import, not > GED), the UIDs changed. Seems to me that's a bit awkward > for someone trying to use those UIDs for anything. > [BLUSH] Sorry; it does what it's supposed to; I have two guys with the same name and I picked up the wrong one when I looked before. The UIDs did remain stable and unchanged from one program to the other. The UID is NOT an RIN/RID; it is a multi-digit number said to be totally unique (hence, UNIQUE Identifier). Cheryl