Doug Blank wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 8:21 AM, doug <dougrb@...
> <mailto:dougrb@...>> wrote:
> Benny Malengier wrote:
> > 2009/9/15 doug <dougrb@... <mailto:dougrb@...>>:
> >> Benny Malengier wrote:
> >>> 2009/9/14 Beber <beber@... <mailto:beber@...>>:
> >>>> Le lundi 14 septembre 2009 Ã Â¸Â£ Ã‚ 22h39, Ã Â¸Â¢Ã Â¸â€¹
> Martin Ewing Ã Â¸Â¢Ã Â¸â€º a Ã Â¸Â£Ã Â¸â€°crit :
> >>>>> This is an interesting question. Ã Â¸Â¢ You can supply
> narrative about
> >>>>> individuals
> >>>>> and "families", but there is no category for "family line" --
> if that is
> >>>>> what the questioner has in mind.
> >>>> Yes, it would be more for expose the origin of a family name or
> >>>> geographical repartition, so to the
> >>>> family pedegree. For example, my grandmother family from
> south-west of
> >>>> britanny
> >>>> (bretagne/breizh) called "castrec". Now in France almost everybody
> >>>> speak french, but in that part of France, french have been
> adopted only
> >>>> for ~40/60 years in place of brezhoneg, so family names are
> >>>> too. Most people don't understand this language now, and I
> would like to
> >>>> make a note that explain Ã Â¸Â¢Ã Â¸â€¹ castrec is family name
> used in FinistÃ Â¸Â£Ã Â¸Ë†re,
> >>>> where can also be found spell/speak castric. That come from
> >>>> (vigourus member), well imaganary Ã Â¸Â¢Ã Â¸â€º. Sorry for
> example and my poor
> >>>> english, i'm still learning. Examples can be multiply.
> >>>> So in that case it's not only for a family name but for the
> >>> The way to do this now would be:
> >>> 1/go to the note view
> >>> 2/create a new note, set Type to: family name history or something
> >>> like that. Make it an easy to remember type
> >>> 3/In the note start with: "Beber Family"
> >>> 4/write the family history
> >>> 5/you can now share this note to some family members of that
> group as
> >>> you please. Note that on the name editor you can add notes I
> >>> So, step 5 is like using a note to tag objects related to that
> >>> The disadvantage is that you probably don't want to add that
> note to
> >>> everybody with that name, as that would be quite some work, and you
> >>> will forget some anyway. Also some reports would print the note
> if you
> >>> require a detailed report (you should test that).
> >>> Anyway, retrieving the note Ã‚ at a later state can be done by
> going to
> >>> the note view, clicking in view to see the filter sidebar, and then
> >>> filter on the type these notes have, and optionally also the
> the text
> >>> 'Beber'
> >>> This is easily done. It is one of the reasons Notes have become
> >>> separate objects since 3.0+ After all, no matter how you link the
> >>> people to the note, the note has to be written anyway. Combined
> >>> the filter sidebar, they become a powerful tool.
> >>> Benny
> >> Beber's idea/request is very interesting to me too, as the need for
> >> narrative on families comes up quite often.
> >> Arising out of this, it often happens that I would like to
> attach an image
> >> to a Note on a family, rather than a Note to an image in the
> >> Gallery - the logic of the narrative runs that way round,
> whereas you now
> >> miss the Note unless you happen to be looking at the particular
> image in the
> >> Gallery.
> >> I don't suppose there's any way of achieving this, is there?
> > No, not directly. These things are avoided because you could have a
> > note with an image that has a note with the image ....
> > So loops would be possible, and a detailed report and other things
> > then become difficult.
> I could see that looming up, hence my "don't suppose" :)
> > It is also not needed. If you say the image is attached to the note,
> > then one can as well argument that the note is attached to the image,
> > and there is no reason to store this link two times. In GRAMPS you
> > need to make the link on the image.
> > So, indirectly, this is not too difficult. If you open the note, you
> > see a references tab at the top where the image the note is attached
> > to is visible. So there is a link back here that enables you to see
> > the images that are connected to this note.
> > Again, using a sensible note type, then gives you quite a lot. After
> > all, an image that has a note with 'Family history' type is an image
> > that is relevant to the family history.
> This assumes you are starting from the image and following
> that up into its details.
> The images in a Gallery are just a semi-haphazard collection
> of objects happening to belong to a person, family, etc. ,
> so whether you look at the image individual details (which
> may connect with one another) is a matter of chance.
> Whereas where there *are* connections it would be nice to be
> able to write a narrative that referred to them in the
> appropriate place.
> Doug, to me, that sounds more like a GRAMPS "report" (perhaps one that
> doesn't exist yet). What do you think of this proposal:
> 1) add tags to GRAMPS so that you can label all kinds of things: people,
> names, notes, events, etc.
> 2) create a report for a tag (or set of tags) that will pull together
> all of the items associated with it/them.
(1) That does sound to me like an excellent general solution
for this sort of requirement, particularly if the "pulling
together" can be associated with a narrative in some form.
(2) It's probably asking too much, but it would be *very*
nice indeed if something like that could be incorporated
into, say, a NavWeb report as a sort of "sub-report" in the
appropriate place for a bit of narrative with images.
Keep dreaming :)