On 2011-05-20 19:36, Tom Wetmore wrote: > Richard, > > I'm late to this discussion, but thought I'd leap in. Your first requirement is sometimes discussed using the terms "record-based genealogy" or "evidence-based genealogy". > > All current genealogical system are "person-based" or "conclusion-based." That is , you only add information to your database that you know to refer to a known person. ..... > > Tom Wetmore That is not true, Gendatam Suite for instance allows a variety of records to be added to a database as initially standalone records and I presume some other systems do to. What I find particularly advantageous to that arrangement is that you are not constrained to just one method of working with the data, you can add to it and link it together in whatever sequence you happen to find convenient. You can even have the computer help you do the linking. The proof of the pudding is then to run a chart and examine the results. Peter

Peter, I do tend to hyperbole, so thanks for calling me out! The Gramps program allows you to add "events" to a database in a standalone manner (I believe). Later you can link those events to the persons. It's still a "person-based" system. As Wes pointed out, there is nothing preventing a user of "ordinary" programs creating separate persons for each "evidence person" and then merging them into the final person later when they decide who is who. This is what I have to do with my program now. The problem with this approach is that once you merge you loose your research history. We need nondestructive merges, which I believe is best done by just building up trees of person records. I will look up the Gendatam program. Thanks for the tip. Tom Wetmore