Richard Smith wrote: > RIF allows us to say "If a person was baptised on some date, then he > or she was born within the previous year", but as genealogists we > don't want rules like that. Our rules are much more fuzzy. We want > to say "If a person was baptised on some date, then, in the absence of > evidence to the contrary, he or she was probably born within the > previous year". Hmm. I think I'd go for something along the lines of "If the statement that a person was baptised on some date is true then that person was born on or before that date". Apart from adult baptisms (not only as practiced by Baptists but also Quakers being baptised into the CofE) there are instances such as Benjamin Hutchinson who was baptised on his fifth birthday on 22/09/1844 at Almondbury along with two older and two younger siblings! -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

Ian Goddard wrote: > Richard Smith wrote: > > RIF allows us to say "If a person was baptised on some date, then he > > or she was born within the previous year", but as genealogists we > > don't want rules like that.  Our rules are much more fuzzy.  We want > > to say "If a person was baptised on some date, then, in the absence of > > evidence to the contrary, he or she was probably born within the > > previous year". > > Hmm.  I think I'd go for something along the lines of "If the statement > that a person was baptised on some date is true then that person was > born on or before that date". You are, of course, quite right. But what you've given is an example of an absolute rule. They're useful, but in a different way to the more fuzzy rule I outlined. Your rule is useful because it allows the system to flag clear contradictions. Suppose you have two statements "The Dunny-on-the-Wold parish register says John Smith was baptised there on 3 Jan 1800" and "John Smith's gravestone says he was born on 5 Jan 1800". If you've identified the two John Smiths as the same person, you might like your genealogy program to draw the apparent contradiction to your attention. Perhaps you mis-transcribed one? Perhaps one of the sources is simply wrong? Perhaps you were mistaken in thinking the two sources refer to the same person. Either way, perhaps worth a second look. The point of fuzzy rules is rather different. Supposed you've found baptisms for a John Smith on 3 Jan 1800 and on 21 Oct 1812, and in the 1851 census there's a John Smith, aged 50. If we believe everything here is accurate, then either the three records refer to different people, or the John Smith in the census was the one baptised in 1812 and he was 11-12 when baptised. But actually, all else being equal, I'd say it's more likely that if the man in the census is the same as one of the baptisms, it's the earlier one, and the age in the census is simply a year out. Having a fuzzy rule to tell you that it's normal to be baptised as a baby, while accepting that baptisms at all ages do occur, helps a computer assist you in finding that record. Richard

Richard Smith wrote: > Ian Goddard wrote: >> Richard Smith wrote: >>> RIF allows us to say "If a person was baptised on some date, then he >>> or she was born within the previous year", but as genealogists we >>> don't want rules like that. Our rules are much more fuzzy. We want >>> to say "If a person was baptised on some date, then, in the absence of >>> evidence to the contrary, he or she was probably born within the >>> previous year". >> Hmm. I think I'd go for something along the lines of "If the statement >> that a person was baptised on some date is true then that person was >> born on or before that date". > > You are, of course, quite right. But what you've given is an example > of an absolute rule. They're useful, but in a different way to the > more fuzzy rule I outlined. Your rule is useful because it allows the > system to flag clear contradictions. Suppose you have two statements > "The Dunny-on-the-Wold :) > parish register says John Smith was baptised > there on 3 Jan 1800" and "John Smith's gravestone says he was born on > 5 Jan 1800". If you've identified the two John Smiths as the same > person, you might like your genealogy program to draw the apparent > contradiction to your attention. Perhaps you mis-transcribed one? > Perhaps one of the sources is simply wrong? Perhaps you were mistaken > in thinking the two sources refer to the same person. Either way, > perhaps worth a second look. > > The point of fuzzy rules is rather different. Supposed you've found > baptisms for a John Smith on 3 Jan 1800 and on 21 Oct 1812, and in the > 1851 census there's a John Smith, aged 50. If we believe everything > here is accurate, then either the three records refer to different > people, or the John Smith in the census was the one baptised in 1812 > and he was 11-12 when baptised. But actually, all else being equal, > I'd say it's more likely that if the man in the census is the same as > one of the baptisms, it's the earlier one, and the age in the census > is simply a year out. Having a fuzzy rule to tell you that it's > normal to be baptised as a baby, while accepting that baptisms at all > ages do occur, helps a computer assist you in finding that record. In the example which I quoted it's fortunate that the PR also includes dates of birth so the situation is clear. But what if it only had the baptismal dates? Your fuzzy rule would tell us that all 5 children were born within a year. I can, however, see the utility. I frequently come across the situation where there are multiple branches of the same family, often with contemporary fathers of the same name, no mother's name given, and sometimes having children baptised with the same name. It would be very useful to have a program to generate the possible alternative sets of families. And in this neck of the woods it be even better to have it generate lists of children whose baptisms have been missed because the minimum number of families is greater than the number of candidate fathers. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk