Bob Velke wrote: > Doug said: > >> Will FTM and TMG agree to change their basic workings so they are the >> same? > > If they did, what would be the point in having two of them? Both > programs are successful because their features cater to researchers who > have different needs and standards for genealogical data. GEDCOM > likewise has its own agenda which is why it does such a poor job of > accommodating the universe of genealogy programs. > >> In genealogy there really is only one single absolute given, at least, >> if one attributes the meaning of "is" to mean >> "born before DNA technology on people". That is, a given person, going >> back in time, has a binary >> tree of ancestors, exactly two per generation, with possible coelescence. > > That is certainly the foundation of PAF and other programs that were > designed 20 years ago. > > More modern programs are slowing coming around to the realization that > genealogy is not about recording facts. Genealogy is about recording parentage. It tells who begat whom. That is the core. Nothing can change this, it is the absolute basis. > It is about recording and > evaluating _evidence_. And evidence doesn't play by such neat and tidy > rules. > > Recording evidence is secondary. And yes, it does not play by neat rules. Therein lies the problem. There is really only one ultimate solution: a "person" has properties. These are described in an unstructured text file. At any point in one of these, a reference to another point in any other file can be inserted. This other file can be a file of a person, or just a "floater". There exist two "key words", equivalent to "this references points to a parent of this person" or "this reference points to a child of this person", that apply to the links. These two words are modified by a binary flag that says "official link for official tree" or "this link is qualified in some way, see text". The "text" could be right there in the that file, or could reference an external file. This will always work. However, it's a bit unstructured for most tastes. And, because of this, the commercial (or freeware) wars begin and will never end :-) Doug McDonald

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message news:fjrm54$2en$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu... > Bob Velke wrote: > > Doug said: > > > >> Will FTM and TMG agree to change their basic workings so they are the > >> same? > > > > If they did, what would be the point in having two of them? Both > > programs are successful because their features cater to researchers who > > have different needs and standards for genealogical data. GEDCOM > > likewise has its own agenda which is why it does such a poor job of > > accommodating the universe of genealogy programs. > > > >> In genealogy there really is only one single absolute given, at least, > >> if one attributes the meaning of "is" to mean > >> "born before DNA technology on people". That is, a given person, going > >> back in time, has a binary > >> tree of ancestors, exactly two per generation, with possible coelescence. > > > > That is certainly the foundation of PAF and other programs that were > > designed 20 years ago. > > > > More modern programs are slowing coming around to the realization that > > genealogy is not about recording facts. I for myself is only recording facts. For that the current programs are sufficient. As I am a Swede, I have the church books for births, weddings and deaths as primary sources. They were written at the time of the event. When there is no church books, I stop. That makes it possible for me to get to around 1650 for some lines, but mostly to around 1700. I leave the going back 6-700 years to the novelists. Not to mention the crackpots who have the ancestors Adam and Eve. Kurt F > Genealogy is about recording parentage. It tells who begat whom. > That is the core. Nothing can change this, it is the absolute > basis. > > > > It is about recording and > > evaluating _evidence_. And evidence doesn't play by such neat and tidy > > rules. > > > > > > Recording evidence is secondary. And yes, it does not play by > neat rules. Therein lies the problem. There is really only > one ultimate solution: a "person" has properties. These > are described in an unstructured text file. At any point in one of these, > a reference to another point in any other file can be inserted. This > other file can be a file of a person, or just a "floater". There exist > two "key words", equivalent to "this references points to a parent > of this person" or "this reference points to a child of this person", > that apply to the links. These two words are modified by a > binary flag that says "official link for official tree" or "this > link is qualified in some way, see text". The "text" could be > right there in the that file, or could reference an external file. > > This will always work. However, it's a bit unstructured for most > tastes. And, because of this, the commercial (or freeware) wars > begin and will never end :-) > > Doug McDonald >

Doug McDonald wrote: > Bob Velke wrote: > > Genealogy is about recording parentage. It tells who begat whom. > That is the core. Nothing can change this, it is the absolute > basis. > I have an ancestor who was born in 1753. His age at death makes that quite clear. There were two individuals of that name born in that year. For one of them the father's name is unequivocal. For the other there are two possible individuals of the same name and generation as the father. There are no good criteria for deciding between these two 1753 individuals is my ancestor nor between the three individuals in the previous generation. I cannot square this situation with your ideas of absolutism. > >> It is about recording and evaluating _evidence_. And evidence doesn't >> play by such neat and tidy rules. >> >> > > Recording evidence is secondary. Did you really mean that? To me this implies that evidence is secondary. Evidence is *primary*. Take the situation I outlines above. There are a number of items of evidence in the form of entries in the baptismal, marriage and burial registers for the parish and in some cases, surviving chapelry records. If anything approaches the absolute this is it. But there are three possible lines of descent. Evidence is primary. Historical reconstructions of individuals are interpretations. Reconstructions of parentage are interpretations of interpretations. -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk