From: Adam S. <ad...@sc...> - 2006-07-25 16:25:30
|
For my wife's uncle's birthday, I thought I would create a family tree and report so that he can see all the people he's related to. I can create a family tree using a custom filter. However, this doesn't appear to be a choice when creating a text report. I need to effectively merge the descendants (including spouses, siblings, etc.) of 3 different people to create the report. The only way to do this is with a filter as far as I know. I can't use an ancestor report, because this won't capture all the people the uncle is related to (like my wife). I can create a book with 3 descendant reports, but then a lot of people just get repeated. I didn't find anything relevant in the forums. Any help is appreciated. -- Adam Stein @ Xerox Corporation Email: ad...@sc... Disclaimer: All views expressed here have been proved to be my own. [http://www.csh.rit.edu/~adam/] |
From: Duncan L. <du...@li...> - 2006-07-25 17:50:20
|
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 12:23 -0400, Adam Stein wrote:=20 > For my wife's uncle's birthday, I thought I would create a family tree > and report so that he can see all the people he's related to. I can > create a family tree using a custom filter. However, this doesn't > appear to be a choice when creating a text report. I'm not sure if I understand _exactly_ what you need but what I did in a similar situation was to take the focus person (your father-in-law) and make the following reports: descendants of focus person (manually add spouse) ancestors of focus person=20 descendants of sibling 1 (manually add spouse) descendants of sibling 2 (manually add spouse) etc... That gave me everything I needed. If you make the reports from the unstable branch of gramps (2.1.9) in the ODT reports you can then change the titles of the different reports so they all appear in the index (instructions by brian for this are in the wiki). OpenOffice can also automatically make an alphabetical index of people with references to the pages on which they appear. I hope that helps. Duncan Lithgow --=20 Linux user: 372812 | GPG key ID: 21A8C63A | http://lithgow-schmidt.dk |
From: Duncan L. <du...@li...> - 2006-07-25 20:53:08
|
I forward Adams reply below On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 14:06 -0400, Adam Stein wrote:=20 > Thanks for replying. I was hoping for a more automatic way. To put my > situation another way that hopefully clears it up, right now if I want > to create a detailed descendant report, I go to the person of interest > and create the report. Now imagine, I want to create a report of > everybody who is a blood relative (or spouse) of the person of interest. >=20 > To give a more specific example, imagine you want to create a detailed > report showing all the people in your database that you are related too. > You might have people not related to you (i.e. parents of your > daughter-in-law, you might have them listed, by they are not related to > you). Gramps already has a detailed descendant report, but you have 3 > family branches that you need to cover to include everybody. How do you > include them all into one report without duplicating people? If you think carefully about the example I gave, you'll notice that only th= e focus person and their spouse are repeated. > To create this in a family tree is easy (Reports->Code > Generators->Relationship Graph...) because I can use a filter which will > get me ALL blood relatives and spouses. The text reports don't allow a > filter, they only allow descendants of the person of interest. Well, if you can suggest a way to structure such a report on a page maybe s= omeone can look at it. I've given it a bit of thought a few times and only = come up with very complicated solutions which would involve some rather com= plex coding. Duncan --=20 Linux user: 372812 | GPG key ID: 21A8C63A | http://lithgow-schmidt.dk |
From: Brian M. <br...@gr...> - 2006-07-26 02:53:55
|
>For my wife's uncle's birthday, I thought I would create a family tree >and report so that he can see all the people he's related to. I can >create a family tree using a custom filter. However, this doesn't >appear to be a choice when creating a text report. >I need to effectively merge the descendants (including spouses, >siblings, etc.) of 3 different people to create the report. The only >way to do this is with a filter as far as I know. I can't use an >ancestor report, because this won't capture all the people the uncle is >related to (like my wife). >I can create a book with 3 descendant reports, but then a lot of people >just get repeated. Adam, This is a problem I have been struggling with for some time. There is no report called "Detailed report of everyone person X is related to". The main problem I see is that I can't imagine how it would be organized. One of essential elements of a text report is that it be in context. A report titled "Decendants of Homer Simpson" puts every person in that report in context. The numbering system used in that report makes it easy to see the relation between any person and Homer Simpson. That numbering system is accepted and proven by professional geneologists. If we made a report with a bunch of people that had various relationships to a given person, then as you read along, you would get lost. If you can come up with an example of a report that accomplishes what you want and is well organized, we can probably program it. The approach I have taken compliments Duncan's suggestion: I make a book report. My book report includes the following: 1) Ancestors of Homer Simpson 2) Decendants of Homer Simpson's parents. This provides all his ancestors, siblings, neices and nefews. Every person (Except Homer) is represented once. If you want Homer's aunts and uncles, then you need: 1) Ancestors of Homer Simpson 2) Decendants of Homer Simpson's paternal grand parents. 3) Decendants of Homer Simpson's maternal grand parents. In this case, Bart Simpson ends up in reports 2 and 3. But he is among different second cousins - so he is in context in both cases. The book reports, in my opinion, turn out very well. And the best thing is that you can save them and reuse them later. Additionally, when Gramps 2.2 is released, you will be able to create a Table of Contents and an Alphabetical Index of Names. Another solution I've considered is making the Family Group Report be able to take a filter of Families. This would make it possible to specify exactly which families get included. The problem I see with this is that it still lacks context. You would have no way of knowing how one family is related to another. I hope some of this helps. Let me know if you have any suggestions. ~Brian |
From: Adam S. <ad...@sc...> - 2006-07-26 11:54:42
|
Thanks for replying. I had tried creating a book containing the descendants of the 3 top people that start each branch. The problem is that all the common people get repeated and there are 3 "Generation 1" sections, 3 "Generation 2" sections, and so forth. I haven't thought about context. In the Detailed Descendant Report, there is no sense of context as I think you are describing it. It simply lists the people in a given Generation (along with spouses, children, and other info about the person). Eventually the children are listed in their own right within their generation. I wasn't thinking about this applying to ALL reports, I was only really thinking about the Detailed Descendant Report since that's the one I use. If I pursue this further, I'll share my thoughts and/or suggestions with the list. On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 19:53 -0700, Brian Matherly wrote: > >For my wife's uncle's birthday, I thought I would create a family tree > >and report so that he can see all the people he's related to. I can > >create a family tree using a custom filter. However, this doesn't > >appear to be a choice when creating a text report. > > >I need to effectively merge the descendants (including spouses, > >siblings, etc.) of 3 different people to create the report. The only > >way to do this is with a filter as far as I know. I can't use an > >ancestor report, because this won't capture all the people the uncle is > >related to (like my wife). > > >I can create a book with 3 descendant reports, but then a lot of people > >just get repeated. > > Adam, > > This is a problem I have been struggling with for some time. There is no report called "Detailed report of everyone person X is related to". The main problem I see is that I can't imagine how it would be organized. > > One of essential elements of a text report is that it be in context. A report titled "Decendants of Homer Simpson" puts every person in that report in context. The numbering system used in that report makes it easy to see the relation between any person and Homer Simpson. That numbering system is accepted and proven by professional geneologists. > > If we made a report with a bunch of people that had various relationships to a given person, then as you read along, you would get lost. > > If you can come up with an example of a report that accomplishes what you want and is well organized, we can probably program it. > > The approach I have taken compliments Duncan's suggestion: I make a book report. My book report includes the following: > > 1) Ancestors of Homer Simpson > 2) Decendants of Homer Simpson's parents. > > This provides all his ancestors, siblings, neices and nefews. Every person (Except Homer) is represented once. > > If you want Homer's aunts and uncles, then you need: > > 1) Ancestors of Homer Simpson > 2) Decendants of Homer Simpson's paternal grand parents. > 3) Decendants of Homer Simpson's maternal grand parents. > > In this case, Bart Simpson ends up in reports 2 and 3. But he is among different second cousins - so he is in context in both cases. > > The book reports, in my opinion, turn out very well. And the best thing is that you can save them and reuse them later. Additionally, when Gramps 2.2 is released, you will be able to create a Table of Contents and an Alphabetical Index of Names. > > Another solution I've considered is making the Family Group Report be able to take a filter of Families. This would make it possible to specify exactly which families get included. The problem I see with this is that it still lacks context. You would have no way of knowing how one family is related to another. > > I hope some of this helps. Let me know if you have any suggestions. > > ~Brian > > > > -- Adam Stein @ Xerox Corporation Email: ad...@sc... Disclaimer: All views expressed here have been proved to be my own. [http://www.csh.rit.edu/~adam/] |