On 20-05-13 00:02, Tim Lyons wrote:
> As you know, I think the census gramplet is absolutely fantastic, and adding
> more things like that would be excellent.
> The only problem with making the addon part of the core is that it makes it
> much harder to update. Now that I am trying to understand the distribution
> and update process for the wiki, I understand that the distributions will
> not update Gramps in their distributions. Therefore, if we want Aunt Martha
> to be able to take advantage of any improvements of fixes, it is better if
> it is an addon, because then we can offer the update directly.
H'm, yes, OK, I see what you mean. What I'm after however is having a
generic certificate manager as part of the Gramps core. And with
generic, I mean one that handles BMD, census, will, etc., and allows for
entry of the most common fields that we can find in either of those,
like age, occupation, role, etc. for each participant in the event.
I'm assuming that, by putting this in the core, we can integrate the
certificate editor into the source view, and maybe offer ways to expand
it by providing XML definition files that help translate census specific
fields to the extra attributes that we already have. These definitions
can then be updated more often, when needed.
Background: In my research area, censuses are far less than 1 % of
available sources, so in its current state, the census add-on is close
to useless to me. I would like to record names as they appear in the
other 99 % of my sources however, so I really long for that certificate
editor. I also think that it may give Gramps a big plus, since there is
hardly any general purpose genealogy program on the market that supports
them. Programs like Clooz handle evidence in a separate database, and
that's definitely not what I'm looking for. And others claim to be able
to handle certificates, but don't really allow for a researcher to
actually store names as they appear. In those, edits of names in one
certificate automatically propagate to a persons appearance in another
one, and that's not what I call true evidence management.
Since I just notice a new message from Nick about using the definition
file for other certificate types, I take a break now.