Haines Brown wrote: > A crime is socially defined (Robinson Crusoe could not commit a crime), > but the act is individual. Hence we are back to the notion that What happened happened. What is is. We might agree (since this is Usenet, more likely we'll disagree) on what words to use to describe it, but changing those words will NOT change what happened or what is. And we might agree or disagree on whether it happened, but if we disagree, at least one of us will be wrong. > I respond, not to answer your question, but to get a better > understanding of the issue. This David would have a GEDCOM entry like > this: > > n @<XREF:FAM>@ FAM > > For example, > > 0 @F4@ FAM > > So couldn't Charles I (son of Andy) possibly be F4, while Charles II > (son of Bob) is F5? So a David with "0 @F4@ FAM" would umambiguously be > the son of Charles I. What am I misunderstanding? First, 0 @<XREF:FAM>@ FAM is the first line of a record about a family, not about a person. Now as to what I _think_ you meant. The question concerned how you would unambiguously show that you can NOT unambiguously tell who he is the son of, in the computer-parseable structure as opposed to a human-readable NOTE. -- Wes Groleau http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/ For lovers of language and learning

Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> writes: > Haines Brown wrote: >> A crime is socially defined (Robinson Crusoe could not commit a crime), >> but the act is individual. Hence we are back to the notion that > > What happened happened. > And we might agree or disagree on whether it happened, but if we > disagree, at least one of us will be wrong. Guess again: I agree! But in search of an example, I find it hard to find something that Crusoe could do that was criminal (there are no laws to break; no one else to take offense). So let's have him commit an abstract hypothetical crime. Well, he did it; what happened, happened. But what makes that act criminal? Only society. I assume that all crimes are transgressions against social norms. >> I respond, not to answer your question, but to get a better >> understanding of the issue. This David would have a GEDCOM entry like >> this: >> >> n @<XREF:FAM>@ FAM >> >> For example, >> >> 0 @F4@ FAM >> >> So couldn't Charles I (son of Andy) possibly be F4, while Charles II >> (son of Bob) is F5? So a David with "0 @F4@ FAM" would umambiguously be >> the son of Charles I. What am I misunderstanding? > > First, 0 @<XREF:FAM>@ FAM is the first line of a record about a family, > not about a person. 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. > Now as to what I _think_ you meant. The question concerned how you > would unambiguously show that you can NOT unambiguously tell who he > is the son of, in the computer-parseable structure as opposed to > a human-readable NOTE. 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? -- Haines Brown, KB1GRM

Wes Groleau wrote: > Now as to what I _think_ you meant. The question concerned how you > would unambiguously show that you can NOT unambiguously tell who he > is the son of, in the computer-parseable structure as opposed to > a human-readable NOTE. > I wish I could have put it as clearly as that! -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk