From: Doug B. <dou...@gm...> - 2010-06-11 01:05:47
|
Please test those functions that use probably_alive in gramps32 and in trunk. I fixed an error where people with a death event were considered dead, regardless of length of time after the death date to still consider alive (for purposes of protecting their data) and regardless of the date of death. I also changed the living proxy in gramps32 to use all available evidence (trunk has been using this method for the last month). I simplified the code, and removed some special cases that were causing the problem. Previously, it was the case that anyone with a death event was considered dead. Now, it depends on the specific dates of birth and death. Please report any strange or peculiar cases. Otherwise, this would be a good reason for a 3.2.4 at some point. -Doug |
From: Gerald B. <ger...@gm...> - 2010-06-11 10:51:21
|
What happens if I have a death event but no date? On 6/10/10, Doug Blank <dou...@gm...> wrote: > Please test those functions that use probably_alive in gramps32 and in > trunk. I fixed an error where people with a death event were > considered dead, regardless of length of time after the death date to > still consider alive (for purposes of protecting their data) and > regardless of the date of death. I also changed the living proxy in > gramps32 to use all available evidence (trunk has been using this > method for the last month). > > I simplified the code, and removed some special cases that were > causing the problem. Previously, it was the case that anyone with a > death event was considered dead. Now, it depends on the specific dates > of birth and death. > > Please report any strange or peculiar cases. Otherwise, this would be > a good reason for a 3.2.4 at some point. > > -Doug > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate > GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the > lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: > http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-devel mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel > -- Sent from my mobile device Gerald Britton |
From: Doug B. <dou...@gm...> - 2010-06-11 11:21:23
|
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Gerald Britton <ger...@gm...> wrote: > What happens if I have a death event but no date? Yes, that was the tricky case that I had some special code to deal with. Also, death dates that were only partially known, for example if only the year was know. It used to be (before yesterday) that if you were asking if a person with a death event (but no date) was probably_alive today, then Gramps would say that the person was definitely dead (as they must be, assuming that all events are in the past). However, this caused a problem when you want to restrict data on living people (plus some years beyond death). The problem illustrates two different uses of probably_alive: 1) you want to filter on those people that are really alive, and 2) you want to protect those people that might be alive, or recently deceased. A person with a death event (but no date) is provably known to not be alive today, but might have been alive a week ago. So it depends on when you are asking, and if you want to consider years-from-death > 0. So, currently trunk and gramps32 do not consider a death event with no date to be useful in determining if a person is alive. We could add a special case: if you are asking if they are alive today, and you are interested in years-from-death == 0, then they would be identified as dead. Otherwise, ignore the fact that they have a death event and use the same logic as always. Hope that that explanation was clear! This is somewhat full of subtleties. Please let me know if you have an opinion on the above addition of the special case. It would make a difference when using filters interactively and when using NarWeb (ie, it should do the right thing in both cases). -Doug > On 6/10/10, Doug Blank <dou...@gm...> wrote: >> Please test those functions that use probably_alive in gramps32 and in >> trunk. I fixed an error where people with a death event were >> considered dead, regardless of length of time after the death date to >> still consider alive (for purposes of protecting their data) and >> regardless of the date of death. I also changed the living proxy in >> gramps32 to use all available evidence (trunk has been using this >> method for the last month). >> >> I simplified the code, and removed some special cases that were >> causing the problem. Previously, it was the case that anyone with a >> death event was considered dead. Now, it depends on the specific dates >> of birth and death. >> >> Please report any strange or peculiar cases. Otherwise, this would be >> a good reason for a 3.2.4 at some point. >> >> -Doug >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate >> GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the >> lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo >> _______________________________________________ >> Gramps-devel mailing list >> Gra...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel >> > > -- > Sent from my mobile device > > Gerald Britton > |
From: Gerald B. <ger...@gm...> - 2010-06-11 15:28:52
|
I'm not sure that there is a perfect solution for this. If I'm filtering for people probably alive today, I would want to exclude someone marked dead. What if I were filtering for people probably alive 50 years ago? Well, if the person with a dateless death event was born before 1960, I'd probably want to see that person in the results. That is, for interactive use, I would rather see more data than less. For reporting though, I'd want to err on the side of caution with respect to keeping personal data hidden for folks who may be alive or may have died recently. A dateless death event gives rise to Schroedinger-like questions. Is he alive or dead? We can only speak of probabilities! Meanwhile, let's not open the box!! Bottom line: I'm not sure we can do much better than what you've put together for this scenario. On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:21 AM, Doug Blank <dou...@gm...> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Gerald Britton > <ger...@gm...> wrote: >> What happens if I have a death event but no date? > > Yes, that was the tricky case that I had some special code to deal > with. Also, death dates that were only partially known, for example if > only the year was know. > > It used to be (before yesterday) that if you were asking if a person > with a death event (but no date) was probably_alive today, then Gramps > would say that the person was definitely dead (as they must be, > assuming that all events are in the past). However, this caused a > problem when you want to restrict data on living people (plus some > years beyond death). > > The problem illustrates two different uses of probably_alive: 1) you > want to filter on those people that are really alive, and 2) you want > to protect those people that might be alive, or recently deceased. A > person with a death event (but no date) is provably known to not be > alive today, but might have been alive a week ago. So it depends on > when you are asking, and if you want to consider years-from-death > 0. > > So, currently trunk and gramps32 do not consider a death event with no > date to be useful in determining if a person is alive. We could add a > special case: if you are asking if they are alive today, and you are > interested in years-from-death == 0, then they would be identified as > dead. Otherwise, ignore the fact that they have a death event and use > the same logic as always. > > Hope that that explanation was clear! This is somewhat full of > subtleties. Please let me know if you have an opinion on the above > addition of the special case. It would make a difference when using > filters interactively and when using NarWeb (ie, it should do the > right thing in both cases). > > -Doug > >> On 6/10/10, Doug Blank <dou...@gm...> wrote: >>> Please test those functions that use probably_alive in gramps32 and in >>> trunk. I fixed an error where people with a death event were >>> considered dead, regardless of length of time after the death date to >>> still consider alive (for purposes of protecting their data) and >>> regardless of the date of death. I also changed the living proxy in >>> gramps32 to use all available evidence (trunk has been using this >>> method for the last month). >>> >>> I simplified the code, and removed some special cases that were >>> causing the problem. Previously, it was the case that anyone with a >>> death event was considered dead. Now, it depends on the specific dates >>> of birth and death. >>> >>> Please report any strange or peculiar cases. Otherwise, this would be >>> a good reason for a 3.2.4 at some point. >>> >>> -Doug >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate >>> GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the >>> lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gramps-devel mailing list >>> Gra...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel >>> >> >> -- >> Sent from my mobile device >> >> Gerald Britton >> > -- Gerald Britton |