There was an idea to add a certificates part to Gramps. Perhaps that can be a first step.
The census gramplet is all that came from this, but the census gramplet only does the input part, and everything is then stored in the normal conclusion based setup of gramps.

With a certificate manager, you would enter source information by selecting the certificate type (census, birth certificate, ...). The certificate itself would be stored, and information generated in the normal Gramps structure. The way this is done is via an evidence/derivation structure, which can map onto the conclusions (events, sources generated)

Problem with certificate manager is the huge amount of different certificates one would need, and code written for everyone of them. This is a huge undertaking. Code needs to understand the type of certificate to generate the correct default conclusions, which the user then can interact with.
Some ideas where put forward: a generic GUI toolkit to create certificates with. A bit like the plugin system. However, look at census gramplet and think about how much could be reused...

My idea was to go more for a textual input method, where one pastes the text of a source, and indicate in the text what is what (call it annotations, which are actually your conclusions drawn from the text). Preselecting a certificate would give you a default pre-annotated text which you fill in.
So, as a userinterface, think of two columns, left a textual input, right a number of colored annotations you can select ('center person', 'father person', 'date birth', ...), you enter text and color code it as needed, or in a default certificate, you see color coded pieces with dummy texts, and clicking those allows to enter text for it.

I suppose I'm a technical person, I don't discuss ideas, I talk in terms of possible implementations. From above it should be clear that coding it would take a lot of time. Richard Taylor started with a certificate manager some years ago, but nothing came of it.

The GEPS for certificates is here:
We could suggest different ways to do certificates, and connect it with evidence registration. Main point is to find a versatile setup that can handle the huge amount of different sources and conclusion derivation, without becoming impossible to maintain.

My take on the evidence entry is that the market for genealogy products is first and foremost about the end result you obtain (the family tree). Most people will only record the evidence part if it means entry of data is not noticeably slower. I believe certificates is the logical way to achieve this goal. People will want to use certificates for data entry, and the evidence, and final family tree comes automatically from that.


2012/5/27 Enno Borgsteede <>
Hi Tim,

I am astonished! When i look at Behold's blog on How Source Based Data Entry Should Work, I see what appears to be a description of Geves. You enter a source, for example a census record, and then subsequently, when you enter other information, you associate it with DOE-1 to indicate that the information is associated with a particular individual. Moreover, if I later decide that this census record relates to DOE-2, I can change the association without changing anything else - and geves actually exists!
True, but ...

1. Geves in not open source like gramps, and not even free like PAF, which is still my main program,
2. Geves is still an old fashioned program, with forms and all that, which makes things tedious, IMO.

See also:

On behold, he says "John D Doe is a different name than John Doe. When right-clicking to add the event, if the person’s name isn’t spelled perfectly, hopefully I’ll be able to set up Behold to allow you to choose the person to add the event to, or allow you to search for the person you want to add the information to." This concept is fully thought through and working in Geves.
Except that Behold 2.0 is supposed to work like a word processor, see:

Please scroll down to the part that says Easy Input - the Way It Should Be.

Now, to tell you the truth, the idea is nothing new. People have used word processors for genealogy for ages, and I have a lot of word documents made by my father, who was very frustrated with the way he had to work with Brother's Keeper, to get all the things he wanted in, like family addresses.

Now imagine that you have a source document in your favourite word processor, with sources at the H1 level, and citations at H2. There's not much new to that, because the gramps 3.4 Citation Tree View works like that, except that the program still uses forms (dialogs) for data entry.

Now here's the change I'm looking for:

When I find some information on the web (FamilySearh, Genlias, etc.), I paste it in a new citation here, and I do the same when I get an email from a fellow genealogist. And since I'm working with a word processor, or a wiki for that matter, I can mark the names that I am interested in, and use some sort of pop-up window to link these names to new or existing persons in my tree. That's it!

How please? In Gramps, I create a person record for John Doe (about whom I have masses of information), then create a birth record for him and then attach a source record for the birth certificate. However, it happens that the birth certificate gives the name as Joseph Doe. How do I record that? True, I can add an alternative name to the person record for Joseph Doe, and I can associate the alternative name with the source record for the birth certificate to show that the birth certificate is the source for the alternative name. However, there is no structured way to show that: on the birth certificate the name was Joseph Doe.
True. And I think that this issue can be covered with a mechanism like the one I wrote about above.

Please note that in this view, I only create hyperlinks between names and persons (individuals), so there are no persona's here. They can be introduced, and when they are used, we can create a system where you can link any person to a number of evidence persons that have different names, birth dates, etc, etc ... and unlink them if you want.

That's all for today.