Ian Goddard wrote: > [email protected] wrote: >> >> I've read thru this thread, and I wonder if there will be any program, >> including your own, that will fullfil all things that have been asked >> here. >> >> It seems to me that you're after a kind of logging system, rather than a > >.....snip a lot > >> >> Can such program be built? Yes, but the degree of freedom you want >> assures you to frequent (and some substantial) changes to be applied. And >> changing the program is one thing, but assuring your data survive those >> changes is another story, where ultimate care will be needed. > > Nope. You end up having to make such changes because you didn't think > it through in the first place. Oh yes, I recognize that argument. But I've never come across a project that didn't have it surprises, even after having written down and discussed and agreed upon the requirements document. It reminds me of a German colleague. He told me that he was having a house built for him after discussing the plans and his wishes with his architect for two years. I challenged him to bet that within one year of living in his home, he would come up with some problems or things he had forget. He took the bet very enthusiastically, but he never came to claim his prize. This illustrates something which I found out the hard way, but I never have seen it in any sort of handbook. When you start a project (be it building a home or an IT solution to some problem), you start from an analysis of the current situation and it problems and the customers desires. Even if you succeed in fulfilling all these requirements, the simple fact that you put your solution in "production" creates a new situation. This has in a few cases I've been thru, invalidated some of the initial presumptions you started off with (customers behavior is changing), and turns your magnificent new solution into a new problem. That's why I am very weary against this "think it thru" and "final solution". Of course, if you build the system for yourself only, it could be a lot easier, but if you release it to the public...... ....snip more.... >> There has been discussions about hierarchy of places. I think trying to >> register such things is a bad idea in the first place, because such >> "relationships" have been so volatile in history. The only indication one >> could give that would remain consistent is something like : place X is >> part of (located nearby, ....) Y in 2011. Even geographical coordinates >> are no good, since villages etc. have moved in the run of time. >> > > By now it should be clear how to treat this. You recognise /in advance/ > that the hierarchies will be time-dependent and make provision for > optional start and finish dates. You also recognise that a particular > place may be simultaneously in different hierarchies, e.g. > ecclesiastical (even different ecclesiastical hierarchies, such as > different Anglican & RC parishes), manorial, Poor Law. You adopt a data > model that fits and then code to that. Sounds good, but are you british? I think you underestimate the complexity of it all. My family tree (my mother's work) goes back to around 1590. Our regions (Flanders) have been jostled around between the big powers for a number of times and reorganized again and again. The town where most of my family lives now (and also in the past, has even been scinded in two (part Spanish, part French) for a number of years. I think a lot of family tree researches simply give up there, it is way to time consuming to record it all. Herman > > > I can envisage a system with several aspects: > > - The genealogical data itself. > > - Standing data such as location information. > > - Rules such as the fuzzy logic which Richard mentioned. > > - A shared data model to describe the above. > > - Code to handle them. > > > This leaves scope for different S/W vendors and open source teams to > provide the last part. It also provides scope for specialists to > provide shared standing data or shared rules. It even, in an ideal > world, provides scope for archive sites such as A2A to export data in a > useable form. And it provides scope for users such as you and I to > explore that data and to find the family relationships which hide within > it. > -- Veel mensen danken hun goed geweten aan hun slecht geheugen. (G. Bomans) Lots of people owe their good conscience to their bad memory (G. Bomans)
On 05-17-2011 06:38, [email protected] wrote: > It reminds me of a German colleague. He told me that he was having a house > built for him after discussing the plans and his wishes with his architect > for two years. I challenged him to bet that within one year of living in his > home, he would come up with some problems or things he had forget. He took > the bet very enthusiastically, but he never came to claim his prize. I was happy with my plans. Not so happy with the dozens of deviations the contractor let the subcontractors get away with! -- Wes Groleau There are two types of people in the world … http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1157