gramps-devel

 [Gramps-devel] Probably alive filter From: Gerald Britton - 2005-12-12 17:12:10 ```Thoughts on "Probably Alive" I've been thinking again on this problem of determining whether someone is probably alive or not. Here is a possible method. Treat it like a case statement; you only need one successful test: 1.=09If there are life-ending events (death, burial, cremation, etc) before the target year, they are probably dead (well, definitely!) 2.=09If there are life-beginning events (birth, baptism, christening, etc) less than earlier than the target year, they are probably alive 3.=09If they have any events less than years ago, they are probably alive 4.=09If they had children within -span of target year, they are probably alive. (e.g. if I had children 30 years ago, I'm probably alive today) 5.=09If they had children less than they are probably alive (e.g. if I had a son five years ago, chances are good that I'm probably alive, since most children outlive their parents and my son will like live until he's 80 or 90) 6.=09If their parents were probably alive (according to the preceding tests) and of child-bearing age such that they could have born the individual less than years ago, he or she is probably alive You could recurs the logic backwards (ancestors) and forwards (descendants) to some pre-determined (or user-input) depth to resolve remaining uncertainties. Along the way, you should probably flag individual records in some way as probably alive or probably dead, to make the next pass faster. (e.g. include a step between steps 2 and 3 above that looks at the flag. Anyway these are just some thoughts and hopefully food for discussion. ```
 Re: [Gramps-devel] Probably alive filter From: Alex Roitman - 2005-12-12 21:55:12 Attachments: application/pgp-signature ```Gerald, It seems that your logic is missing the case that you yourself help to uncover: a person with any event too long ago (e.g. birth or marriage in 1340) is very likely to be dead. Alex On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 12:12 -0500, Gerald Britton wrote: > Thoughts on "Probably Alive" >=20 > I've been thinking again on this problem of determining whether > someone is probably alive or not. Here is a possible method. Treat > it like a case statement; you only need one successful test: >=20 > 1. If there are life-ending events (death, burial, cremation, etc) > before the target year, they are probably dead (well, definitely!) > 2. If there are life-beginning events (birth, baptism, christening, > etc) less than earlier than the target year, they are > probably alive > 3. If they have any events less than years ago, they are > probably alive > 4. If they had children within -span > of target year, they are probably alive. (e.g. if I had children 30 > years ago, I'm probably alive today) > 5. If they had children less than they are > probably alive (e.g. if I had a son five years ago, chances are good > that I'm probably alive, since most children outlive their parents and > my son will like live until he's 80 or 90) > 6. If their parents were probably alive (according to the preceding > tests) and of child-bearing age such that they could have born the > individual less than years ago, he or she is probably alive >=20 > You could recurs the logic backwards (ancestors) and forwards > (descendants) to some pre-determined (or user-input) depth to resolve > remaining uncertainties. Along the way, you should probably flag > individual records in some way as probably alive or probably dead, to > make the next pass faster. (e.g. include a step between steps 2 and 3 > above that looks at the flag. >=20 > Anyway these are just some thoughts and hopefully food for discussion. --=20 Alexander Roitman http://www.gramps-project.org ```