Haines Brown wrote: > But Charles would then be linked to family of Urfather Andy, not to > family of Urfather Bob. I thought the issue was to know whether this > Charles was grandson of Andy or of Bob. > > Of course a human-radable NOTE could say, "This Charles is grandson of > Andy". But that fact also strikes me as being machine-readable from the > presence of the F4 link. That is, the link to n @<XREF:FAM>@ FAM will > take me to the element in FAM, +1 HUSB @<XREF:INDI>@ {0:1}, and this > to n @<XREF:INDI>@ INDI {1:1}, and in turn to +1 > <<CHILD_TO_FAMILY_LINK>> {0:M}, which leads to n @<XREF:FAM>@ FAM and > thence to the @<XREF:INDI>@ INDI {1:1}, for Andy. Or what am I missing > here? After the above, I haven't a clue what you're getting, much less what you're missing. -- Wes Groleau Words of the Wild Wes(t) = http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW

Wes Groleau wrote: > After the above, I haven't a clue what you're getting, > much less what you're missing. And I don't say that to insult--I genuinely could not understand what you wrote. -- Wes Groleau Change is inevitable. We need to learn that "inevitable" is neither a synonym for "good" nor for "bad." -- WWG

Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> writes: > Wes Groleau wrote: >> After the above, I haven't a clue what you're getting, >> much less what you're missing. > > And I don't say that to insult--I genuinely > could not understand what you wrote. Thank you, Wes. I didn't take your comment negatively. I didn't reply because your comment is forcing me to go back and restudy the issue, and then perhaps I can convey my question more clearly. -- Haines Brown, KB1GRM