On Sunday, May 22, 2011 3:55:21 PM UTC-4, Peter J. Seymour wrote: > I feel that you are approaching the topic from an intensely theoretical > way (which is not necessarily a bad thing) while Gendatam is an existing > system producing practical results (well certainly for me). We may > therefore be seeing things in different ways. My intentions are intensely practical and not theoretical -- how to design a usable genealogical application to support the full genealogical research process. I accept we see things in different ways, and if we spent the effort needed we would finally understand each others' point of view! > For instance, the Person record in Gendatam is a type of persona in that > it is mutable and while on the one hand not inextricably tied to a > specific position in a tree (and therefore may be seen as not the same > as a true person) it is nevertheless tied to Evidence records to the > extent that the user has provided them. There is some misunderstanding here as a hallmark of a persona record is its immutability. >>This highlights a feature of > Gendatam, it is not Person-based, it is not Event-based, it is not > Evidence-based, but it is all or any of these depending on how you > choose to look at it. This is a powerful idea and accommodates both different styles as both the preferred way of working by different genealogists, but also different styles as dictated by the different sources of information one works with. > Gendatam provides for the > extraction of selected evidence data into new records, but I do not see > that the makes the program "conclusion based". It is rather a way of > highlighting and enabling analysis of particular pieces of evidence data. In my example of the 75 records I was trying to understand exactly this. How would I use Gendatam to extract the evidence from those 75 source records, and where where would I put it and in what format would I put it into Gendatam records? My point was, that if I understood the answer to that question I would be able to make a judgement about Gendatam's conclusion orientation. Tom

On 2011-05-22 22:05, Tom Wetmore wrote: > On Sunday, May 22, 2011 3:55:21 PM UTC-4, Peter J. Seymour wrote: >> I feel that you are approaching the topic from an intensely theoretical >> way (which is not necessarily a bad thing) while Gendatam is an existing >> system producing practical results (well certainly for me). We may >> therefore be seeing things in different ways. > > My intentions are intensely practical and not theoretical -- how to design a usable genealogical application to support the full genealogical research process. I accept we see things in different ways, and if we spent the effort needed we would finally understand each others' point of view! > >> For instance, the Person record in Gendatam is a type of persona in that >> it is mutable and while on the one hand not inextricably tied to a >> specific position in a tree (and therefore may be seen as not the same >> as a true person) it is nevertheless tied to Evidence records to the >> extent that the user has provided them. > > There is some misunderstanding here as a hallmark of a persona record is its immutability. Sorry, loose wording on my part - it is the linkage to the specific tree position which can be easily changed. This allows flexibility in diverting the set of data represented by a Person record from one real person to another if required. That was my point. I believe in some other programs the two cannot be separated. >>> This highlights a feature of >> Gendatam, it is not Person-based, it is not Event-based, it is not >> Evidence-based, but it is all or any of these depending on how you >> choose to look at it. > > This is a powerful idea and accommodates both different styles as both the preferred way of working by different genealogists, but also different styles as dictated by the different sources of information one works with. > >> Gendatam provides for the >> extraction of selected evidence data into new records, but I do not see >> that the makes the program "conclusion based". It is rather a way of >> highlighting and enabling analysis of particular pieces of evidence data. > > In my example of the 75 records I was trying to understand exactly this. How would I use Gendatam to extract the evidence from those 75 source records, and where where would I put it and in what format would I put it into Gendatam records? My point was, that if I understood the answer to that question I would be able to make a judgement about Gendatam's conclusion orientation. > I'm not sure I can advise you much further on this one. Gendatam does not require a set way of working. You would use it as a tool to explore the data, it does not offer a magic solution. You need to understand what your data might in principle provide, what in practice the data would probably provide and what sort of end result you want to achieve. It will not do the work for you (except for automation of some routine tasks). One aspect I find helpful is that it can highlight what data is missing. The general approach is that new data would if possible be entered as Evidence Records, but if you do not have the data in a substantive evidential form you might instead (as a "temporary" measure) enter it directly for instance as a Person record with a name or as an Event Record with a type and a date, etc. Evidence records are processed by extracting data to generate other record types. The purpose of data extraction rather than in-situ linking is to allow the possibility for you to generate those records even if there are no relevant evidence records, as suggested above. Once you have generated the possible records (which would be linked in various ways), the end result is to be able to run a report or chart showing a collection of related people. The overall process would be iterative where it may be possible to achieve successive refinements (clarification of existing data, adding extra data etc). I do admit this allows scope for cheating by adjusting the data to give the result you want, but I do not see any way of avoiding that exposure in the process. It is really a case of try it and see. That may provide ideas, both positive and negative. Hope that helps. Peter