JD <jd4x4@<del.this>verizon.net> writes: > Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > In practice it seems that the GEDCOM type of model has > > influenced genealogical S/W to the extent that there doesn't > > seem to be any real advance on it. > > Again, one of the problems coming out of GEDCOM is that the DATA is > getting mixed with the model. The data is and will always be what it is, > right? The differences are in how we each use it and think of it, imo. All this discussion is interesting (and we hope useful), but could there be some elaboration on the above points? It would seem that genealogical info describes a network of parents to/from children with nets spliced/joined by marriages. How does one "improve" on this "model"?

mojaveg@mojaveg.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com (Everett M. Greene) wrote: > JD <jd4x4@<del.this>verizon.net> writes: >> Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >> > In practice it seems that the GEDCOM type of model has >> > influenced genealogical S/W to the extent that there doesn't >> > seem to be any real advance on it. >> >> Again, one of the problems coming out of GEDCOM is that the DATA is >> getting mixed with the model. The data is and will always be what it >> is, right? The differences are in how we each use it and think of it, >> imo. > > All this discussion is interesting (and we hope useful), but > could there be some elaboration on the above points? It would > seem that genealogical info describes a network of parents > to/from children with nets spliced/joined by marriages. How > does one "improve" on this "model"? > Not just this particular "model", because there are others that use the same core data. I'm thinking that since many "data babies" get thrown out with "genealogy", "family history", and who knows what other bath water every day that goes by which baths are taken... that at least a mechanism to capture and improve the data sets with machines is in order. And, I see "XML" as being a help with that. Now, "XML" covers a LOT of ground, not just a "data model", or a "standard", or even a "language".. it's strength lies in smart use of it together in the correct ever-expanding implementation of all of these aspects, imo. Data that's taggged in at least a basic improved fashion every day could be of use. Also, apps for genealogy should help with the exchanges and tagging at least in the background (like in the date example & my scenario in the previous post) if they were XML compliant. Hope this makes a little sense.. I'm late for a task & in a rush!

JD <jd4x4@ wrote: > mojaveg@mojaveg.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com (Everett M. Greene) wrote: > > >>JD <jd4x4@<del.this>verizon.net> writes: >> >>>Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>>In practice it seems that the GEDCOM type of model has >>>>influenced genealogical S/W to the extent that there doesn't >>>>seem to be any real advance on it. >>> >>>Again, one of the problems coming out of GEDCOM is that the DATA is >>>getting mixed with the model. The data is and will always be what it >>>is, right? The differences are in how we each use it and think of it, >>>imo. >> >>All this discussion is interesting (and we hope useful), but >>could there be some elaboration on the above points? It would >>seem that genealogical info describes a network of parents >>to/from children with nets spliced/joined by marriages. How >>does one "improve" on this "model"? >> > > > Not just this particular "model", because there are others that use the > same core data. I'm thinking that since many "data babies" get thrown > out with "genealogy", "family history", and who knows what other bath > water every day that goes by which baths are taken... that at least a > mechanism to capture and improve the data sets with machines is in > order. > > And, I see "XML" as being a help with that. Now, "XML" covers a LOT of > ground, not just a "data model", or a "standard", or even a "language".. > it's strength lies in smart use of it together in the correct > ever-expanding implementation of all of these aspects, imo. Data that's > taggged in at least a basic improved fashion every day could be of use. > Also, apps for genealogy should help with the exchanges and tagging at > least in the background (like in the date example & my scenario in the > previous post) if they were XML compliant. > > Hope this makes a little sense.. I'm late for a task & in a rush! The thing is, it doesn't explain what you're wanting it to if someone doesn't already know what you mean by what you say, if you see what I mean? Cheryl

JD <jd4x4@<del.this>verizon.net> writes: > mojaveg@mojaveg.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com (Everett M. Greene) wrote: > > JD <jd4x4@<del.this>verizon.net> writes: > >> Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> > In practice it seems that the GEDCOM type of model has > >> > influenced genealogical S/W to the extent that there doesn't > >> > seem to be any real advance on it. > >> > >> Again, one of the problems coming out of GEDCOM is that the DATA is > >> getting mixed with the model. The data is and will always be what it > >> is, right? The differences are in how we each use it and think of it, > >> imo. > > > > All this discussion is interesting (and we hope useful), but > > could there be some elaboration on the above points? It would > > seem that genealogical info describes a network of parents > > to/from children with nets spliced/joined by marriages. How > > does one "improve" on this "model"? > > Not just this particular "model", because there are others that use the > same core data. I'm thinking that since many "data babies" get thrown > out with "genealogy", "family history", and who knows what other bath > water every day that goes by which baths are taken... that at least a > mechanism to capture and improve the data sets with machines is in > order. How does machine manipulation "improve" genealogical data? > And, I see "XML" as being a help with that. Now, "XML" covers a LOT of > ground, not just a "data model", or a "standard", or even a "language".. > it's strength lies in smart use of it together in the correct > ever-expanding implementation of all of these aspects, imo. Data that's > taggged in at least a basic improved fashion every day could be of use. > Also, apps for genealogy should help with the exchanges and tagging at > least in the background (like in the date example & my scenario in the > previous post) if they were XML compliant. > > Hope this makes a little sense.. I'm late for a task & in a rush!

Everett M. Greene wrote: > JD <jd4x4@<del.this>verizon.net> writes: > >>Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > >>>In practice it seems that the GEDCOM type of model has >>>influenced genealogical S/W to the extent that there doesn't >>>seem to be any real advance on it. >> >>Again, one of the problems coming out of GEDCOM is that the DATA is >>getting mixed with the model. The data is and will always be what it is, >>right? The differences are in how we each use it and think of it, imo. > > > All this discussion is interesting (and we hope useful), but > could there be some elaboration on the above points? It would > seem that genealogical info describes a network of parents > to/from children with nets spliced/joined by marriages. How > does one "improve" on this "model"? just open any small gedcom in a text editor and study the links by the @@@ Hugh W -- For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/ http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG

Everett M. Greene wrote: > JD <jd4x4@<del.this>verizon.net> writes: >> Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >>> In practice it seems that the GEDCOM type of model has >>> influenced genealogical S/W to the extent that there doesn't >>> seem to be any real advance on it. >> Again, one of the problems coming out of GEDCOM is that the DATA is >> getting mixed with the model. The data is and will always be what it is, >> right? The differences are in how we each use it and think of it, imo. > > All this discussion is interesting (and we hope useful), but > could there be some elaboration on the above points? It would > seem that genealogical info describes a network of parents > to/from children with nets spliced/joined by marriages. How > does one "improve" on this "model"? I think the knowledge that we all have a network of parents tracing us back to Pooh-Bah's "protoplasmic globule" has proved to be too much of a temptation for many S/W authors. It's a nice tempting structure on which to base a program. The trouble is that although we know that the structure exists we don't actually *know* who occupied its nodes. Half a working life spent investigating the past has left me acutely aware that what happened in the past, the evidence it left behind and my interpretation of it are three different things - and your interpretation would be a fourth. The past is gone. We can't go there. The best we can do is look for the evidence, analyse it and interpret it. In any form of investigation keeping evidence and interpretation distinct is essential and this, ISTM, is what most, if not all genealogical S/W fails to do. If we find that John, son of William Smith was baptised in 1692 this gives us a couple of names and roles. There are very few ways in which S/W handles this. One way, the individual-centred, is to invite us to edit the records for John and William if they exist and add the event and date or to create a new record for either if it doesn't exist. But the decision as to whether the individuals in this newly discovered event are the same as those already in the database is interpretation. So whether we choose to enter or edit we are leaping straight to interpretation and relegating the evidence to a footnote. Another way, event-centred, is to allow us to add the event and create new individual records for John and William. This gives us what appears to be a nicely structured representation of the evidence, a record of the event and records of the names and roles of its participants. We can move to interpretation in our own time, deferring for as long as we wish, the question of whether, for instance this John is the same John as the one who married in 1714 and was the father of Mary Smith baptised in 1715. If, however, we decide that the infant and the bridegroom were indeed one and the same the only option available is to merge the two records. What appeared initially to be a record which was part of the evidence structure has suddenly been treated as part of the interpretation. If we were to decide that we shouldn't have merged them we will have to hand-craft another record to replace the one that was discarded during the merge and patch up the links. What we need is an evidence-centred approach which will allow us to enter the event and the name/role records as part of the evidence and retain them as permanent records. We would have a different record which would represent our historical reconstruction (interpretation) of John Smith. We would then link both our evidential records of John to this. If we change our mind about the interpretation all we need to do is delete the link we don't want. Alternatively we might have a link which carries enough information to record that we're not sure whether the identification is correct. We could even link an evidential record to more than one reconstruction until we make up our minds. In data modeling terms the evidential and interpretational records are different kinds of entity even if they're both characterised by a name. This, to my mind, is the minimum model needed to underpin good investigative practice. Personally I'd want to make the link which represents the identification between evidence and interpretation into an entity in its own right, I'd want to make sources into a hierarchy capable of representing such structure as archives, collections and documents (Gramps is a good example of this) and I'd want each record to have a globally unique identifier (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globally_Unique_Identifier) to facilitate information sharing. This produces a more complex model than that which underlies GEDCOM. We could use GEDCOM to represent the evidential view or the interpretational view but we can't use it do both at the same time nor can it tell us which view it's representing. -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk

Ian Goddard wrote: > Everett M. Greene wrote: > >> JD <jd4x4@<del.this>verizon.net> writes: >> >>> Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >>>> In practice it seems that the GEDCOM type of model has influenced >>>> genealogical S/W to the extent that there doesn't >>>> seem to be any real advance on it. >>> >>> Again, one of the problems coming out of GEDCOM is that the DATA is >>> getting mixed with the model. The data is and will always be what it is, >>> right? The differences are in how we each use it and think of it, imo. >> >> >> All this discussion is interesting (and we hope useful), but >> could there be some elaboration on the above points? It would >> seem that genealogical info describes a network of parents >> to/from children with nets spliced/joined by marriages. How >> does one "improve" on this "model"? > > > I think the knowledge that we all have a network of parents tracing us > back to Pooh-Bah's "protoplasmic globule" has proved to be too much of a > temptation for many S/W authors. It's a nice tempting structure on > which to base a program. The trouble is that although we know that the > structure exists we don't actually *know* who occupied its nodes. > > Half a working life spent investigating the past has left me acutely > aware that what happened in the past, the evidence it left behind and my > interpretation of it are three different things - and your > interpretation would be a fourth. > > The past is gone. We can't go there. The best we can do is look for > the evidence, analyse it and interpret it. In any form of investigation > keeping evidence and interpretation distinct is essential and this, > ISTM, is what most, if not all genealogical S/W fails to do. > > If we find that John, son of William Smith was baptised in 1692 this > gives us a couple of names and roles. There are very few ways in which > S/W handles this. > > One way, the individual-centred, is to invite us to edit the records for > John and William if they exist and add the event and date or to create a > new record for either if it doesn't exist. But the decision as to > whether the individuals in this newly discovered event are the same as > those already in the database is interpretation. So whether we choose > to enter or edit we are leaping straight to interpretation and > relegating the evidence to a footnote. > > Another way, event-centred, is to allow us to add the event and create > new individual records for John and William. This gives us what appears > to be a nicely structured representation of the evidence, a record of > the event and records of the names and roles of its participants. We > can move to interpretation in our own time, deferring for as long as we > wish, the question of whether, for instance this John is the same John > as the one who married in 1714 and was the father of Mary Smith baptised > in 1715. If, however, we decide that the infant and the bridegroom were > indeed one and the same the only option available is to merge the two > records. What appeared initially to be a record which was part of the > evidence structure has suddenly been treated as part of the > interpretation. If we were to decide that we shouldn't have merged them > we will have to hand-craft another record to replace the one that was > discarded during the merge and patch up the links. > > What we need is an evidence-centred approach which will allow us to > enter the event and the name/role records as part of the evidence and > retain them as permanent records. We would have a different record > which would represent our historical reconstruction (interpretation) of > John Smith. We would then link both our evidential records of John to > this. If we change our mind about the interpretation all we need to do > is delete the link we don't want. Alternatively we might have a link > which carries enough information to record that we're not sure whether > the identification is correct. We could even link an evidential record > to more than one reconstruction until we make up our minds. In data > modeling terms the evidential and interpretational records are different > kinds of entity even if they're both characterised by a name. This, to > my mind, is the minimum model needed to underpin good investigative > practice. Personally I'd want to make the link which represents the > identification between evidence and interpretation into an entity in its > own right, I'd want to make sources into a hierarchy capable of > representing such structure as archives, collections and documents > (Gramps is a good example of this) and I'd want each record to have a > globally unique identifier (see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globally_Unique_Identifier) to facilitate > information sharing. > > This produces a more complex model than that which underlies GEDCOM. We > could use GEDCOM to represent the evidential view or the > interpretational view but we can't use it do both at the same > time nor can it tell us which view it's representing. > Could some of the problems be cured _IF_ the genie program were used to record ONLY conclusions? Back in the long-long-ago, before we had computer genealogy programs, we had working forms and final forms; the final form was prettily written in ink on quality paper and represented our conclusions. The working forms were scribbled in pencil on something approaching newsprint, stapled together by name, one form per source. When we REACHED a conclusion, we annotated the final one, on the back, with remarks like "The family of the same names in South Fork is a different family" or "There is a family in North Branch which is very similar to this family." I find it inefficient to constantly have to re-evaluate my data. Often clue which didn't make it to the Xerox copy or the digital image contributed to a thought which led me to another source where I found what I considered conclusive evidence. I don't always remember why I went to look in East Widget records when the family before and after was in South Som'ers...without remembering why, I can easily reach a different conclusion. Remember, no fact cannot be misinterpreted in at least three different ways, and most evidence can also be interpreted many ways. Ask any Defense attorney. Cheryl

singhals wrote: > > > Could some of the problems be cured _IF_ the genie program were used to > record ONLY conclusions? I suspect that this is the only reasonable way to use some of them. Nobody ever responded to my challenge to name one that would have the functionality equivalent to index cards and paper clips. > > Ask any Defense attorney. > Don't! They're too expensive to talk to. I spent plenty of time being asked questions by them, however. -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk