OK, I read the blog post, but I don't think I got it.

What I've been doing using Gramps.

I create an event (starting with a specific couple), say marriage.
To that event I attach a citation of the marriage cert. 
I attach an image of the cert to the citation.
The event is attached (created with) the couple since both have to be present for the marriage, along with the location of the wedding if specified (often not, just that the license was issued someplace).
The event is also attached to the officiant if it's listed, the witnesses if present with appropriate roles. 

I'll also take the citation and attach it to events such as birth of the two celebrants, residence for each as of the date of the cert, occupation for them.

If the document says her father is dead, the citation would be attached to her father's death event with a "before date of marriage".

I figure I"m pulling lots of evidence for different events from one document. That's what the citation is for. The citation is attached to many different types of events.

In your opinion / practice / model where am I going in a different  / wrong direction?  Or am I mis-understanding what you mean by attaching things to people?


From: Tony Proctor <tony@proctor.net>

Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Implied presence

It is not forlorn Paul. I'm doing this now!

I plan to write-up my solutions, in time, but it's hard to balance the blog
with my research, my software development, and the day job [also software

    Tony Proctor

----- Original Message -----
From: "paul womack" <pwomack@papermule.co.uk>
To: "Tony Proctor" <tony@proctor.net>; "Philip Weiss"
<weiss.philip+gramps@gmail.com>; <gramps-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Implied presence

> Tony Proctor wrote:
>> That approach, although very common, has its problems Paul. I have argued
>> that it's the wrong approach here:
>> http://parallax-viewpoint.blogspot.com/2013/11/evidence-and-where-to-stick-it.html
> Yes, you're quite right, in theory. We could try and come up
> with a beautifully designed, fully normalised model that can also
> handle all possible data sets one might encounter when doing family
> history/genealogy.
> Since the latter involves modelling the whole world (including all
> human activity), and (worse) involves modelling a constantly
> changing model of the whole world, I think this is a forlorn hope.
> In practise, a little intelligent "dirt", and a relaxed view of how
> to model rare cases allows a huge amount of useful work
> to be done with dramatically simpler data models.
> I happen to work full time with database products, and
> I would not dream of omitting the ever helpful "comment"
> free text box in a model :-)
>  BugBear

Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT
organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance
affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your
Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro!
Gramps-users mailing list