Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:32:49 -0500, Haines Brown > <brownh@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> declaimed the following in > soc.genealogy.computing: > > > >>Wes, sorry to be so slow about this. When there is a father-child >>relation (in any database), aren't we always identifying specific >>persons? That is, child is Child A because we always uniquely >>distinguished that child from others. Now, Child A has a father, which >>we also always specifally identify as Father A. So if we trace back from >>child to parent, it is always from Child A to Father A. Are we not >>always identifying specific people? >> > > I believe the hypothesis is one grandchild; two people who could be > the father, but no evidence is available to isolate to one of the two. > All we know is that one of the two (Father A1 or Father A2) IS the > father. > > Most genealogy programs have no way to handle this in a way that can > be navigated directly. One has to attach the child to one or the other > father, and can only record the ambiguity using some analyst's text note > of the form "The father is not fully identified at this time, person XXX > might be the real father". > > The better event-based systems would permit adding a secondary > "father" relationship; in this way, both possible fathers are directly > linked in the database. For report purposes, one would have to be > identified as "primary", but no "text note" is needed to explain the > ambiguity on screen. Most genie programs these days allow for "alternate parents" ... but bottom line remains that once you've given someone 4 potential sets of parents, only one set at a time can be displayed on screen. And if you want to print it off, you have to PICK which set of parents of you want. That involves a "text note" to explain why you picked who you did. Cheryl