2010/9/30 Gerald Britton <gerald.britton@gmail.com>
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Benny Malengier
<benny.malengier@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 2010/9/30 Gerald Britton <gerald.britton@gmail.com>
>>
>> c1-3 belong in the first family.  c4 in the second one.  I wouldn't
>> add c1-3 to the second family as well.
>
> If c1-c3 actually lived in that second family, then adding them there is a
> correct action.

Not what I would do -- here's why:  To me, a child in a family means
that the parents are the parents of record when the child first
entered the family -- as in at birth or adoption.  Even if the child
never knew the mother or father due to some unfortunate circumstance,
I only put the child in that one family.  It saves confusion.
Otherwise you can have things like:

A child is born to some father and a mother.  Child grows up then goes
away to study for several years.  In the interim, his mother dies and
his father remarries.  Child returns home after study and stays for
several years while getting established.  I would never put that (now
adult) child in the second family, since the father's second wife,
though technically his stepmother, may never assume the role of the
mother in the child's life.

> When navigating down in a descendant tree, it is important to not only
> select a child, but also to know what mother must be shown when the child is
> selected.

There's no ambiguity if the child is only added to one family

The specific use case is more for people today, who do not want to see themselves _not_ in the second family. As you know, when you distribute data, it is often with the people alive today you have most problems.

Benny 

>Probably that is why in those places you see them double.

Definitely,

> If so, a better way of showing this would be usefull.
>
> Benny
>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Jim Hunt <robertjhunt@ntlworld.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I guess this is actually a question of correct genealogy practice but I
>> > am hitting it in gramps so am taking the opportunity of asking here -
>> >
>> > Man has first marriage and three children from it, then second marriage
>> > and further children. In gramps terms this seemed to me to be two
>> > families -
>> >  M + W1 + C1 + C2 + C3
>> > and M + W2 + C1 + C2 + C3 + C4 etc
>> >
>> > The differences between the old & new children are in their
>> > relationships to the parents, being (Birth, Birth) or (Birth, Stepchild)
>> > respectively.
>> >
>> > The problem is that C1, C2, C3 now appear twice in Man's descendants
>> > lists without any indication that they are the same person but with
>> > different status. The two displays in which I have seen this are in the
>> > Descendants Tree graphical report and in the pop-up choice list when
>> > navigating downstream in the on-screen Pedigree display.
>> >
>> > This seems awkward, is there a better way of implementing the
>> > relationships?
>> >
>> > Jim
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances
>> > and start using them to simplify application deployment and
>> > accelerate your shift to cloud computing.
>> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Gramps-users mailing list
>> > Gramps-users@lists.sourceforge.net
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gerald Britton
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances
>> and start using them to simplify application deployment and
>> accelerate your shift to cloud computing.
>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gramps-users mailing list
>> Gramps-users@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>
>



--
Gerald Britton