You can subscribe to this list here.
2001 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(22) |
Jun
(13) |
Jul
(11) |
Aug
(16) |
Sep
(17) |
Oct
(16) |
Nov
(58) |
Dec
(31) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2002 |
Jan
(28) |
Feb
(26) |
Mar
(6) |
Apr
(10) |
May
(14) |
Jun
(14) |
Jul
(18) |
Aug
(33) |
Sep
(23) |
Oct
(36) |
Nov
(36) |
Dec
(29) |
2003 |
Jan
(36) |
Feb
(52) |
Mar
(31) |
Apr
(9) |
May
(37) |
Jun
(29) |
Jul
(35) |
Aug
(34) |
Sep
(30) |
Oct
(44) |
Nov
(107) |
Dec
(95) |
2004 |
Jan
(78) |
Feb
(145) |
Mar
(163) |
Apr
(109) |
May
(61) |
Jun
(110) |
Jul
(137) |
Aug
(138) |
Sep
(100) |
Oct
(81) |
Nov
(28) |
Dec
(153) |
2005 |
Jan
(45) |
Feb
(88) |
Mar
(63) |
Apr
(71) |
May
(124) |
Jun
(47) |
Jul
(52) |
Aug
(66) |
Sep
(72) |
Oct
(54) |
Nov
(57) |
Dec
(54) |
2006 |
Jan
(91) |
Feb
(91) |
Mar
(116) |
Apr
(80) |
May
(116) |
Jun
(49) |
Jul
(55) |
Aug
(80) |
Sep
(84) |
Oct
(135) |
Nov
(82) |
Dec
(215) |
2007 |
Jan
(147) |
Feb
(132) |
Mar
(139) |
Apr
(147) |
May
(149) |
Jun
(174) |
Jul
(177) |
Aug
(91) |
Sep
(137) |
Oct
(123) |
Nov
(150) |
Dec
(110) |
2008 |
Jan
(166) |
Feb
(122) |
Mar
(143) |
Apr
(163) |
May
(134) |
Jun
(157) |
Jul
(144) |
Aug
(209) |
Sep
(176) |
Oct
(215) |
Nov
(178) |
Dec
(170) |
2009 |
Jan
(199) |
Feb
(171) |
Mar
(268) |
Apr
(188) |
May
(181) |
Jun
(154) |
Jul
(110) |
Aug
(162) |
Sep
(104) |
Oct
(128) |
Nov
(225) |
Dec
(137) |
2010 |
Jan
(170) |
Feb
(143) |
Mar
(152) |
Apr
(200) |
May
(199) |
Jun
(150) |
Jul
(160) |
Aug
(155) |
Sep
(77) |
Oct
(66) |
Nov
(222) |
Dec
(120) |
2011 |
Jan
(108) |
Feb
(163) |
Mar
(88) |
Apr
(105) |
May
(157) |
Jun
(201) |
Jul
(140) |
Aug
(168) |
Sep
(177) |
Oct
(126) |
Nov
(96) |
Dec
(99) |
2012 |
Jan
(156) |
Feb
(172) |
Mar
(115) |
Apr
(68) |
May
(107) |
Jun
(188) |
Jul
(134) |
Aug
(169) |
Sep
(347) |
Oct
(168) |
Nov
(128) |
Dec
(177) |
2013 |
Jan
(181) |
Feb
(247) |
Mar
(198) |
Apr
(161) |
May
(215) |
Jun
(319) |
Jul
(196) |
Aug
(149) |
Sep
(142) |
Oct
(130) |
Nov
(130) |
Dec
(100) |
2014 |
Jan
(247) |
Feb
(195) |
Mar
(119) |
Apr
(276) |
May
(96) |
Jun
(325) |
Jul
(180) |
Aug
(190) |
Sep
(169) |
Oct
(262) |
Nov
(79) |
Dec
(185) |
2015 |
Jan
(479) |
Feb
(263) |
Mar
(255) |
Apr
(136) |
May
(361) |
Jun
(198) |
Jul
(349) |
Aug
(645) |
Sep
(96) |
Oct
(196) |
Nov
(99) |
Dec
(233) |
2016 |
Jan
(204) |
Feb
(477) |
Mar
(201) |
Apr
(126) |
May
(182) |
Jun
(108) |
Jul
(180) |
Aug
(309) |
Sep
(177) |
Oct
(315) |
Nov
(424) |
Dec
(334) |
2017 |
Jan
(362) |
Feb
(339) |
Mar
(251) |
Apr
(144) |
May
(231) |
Jun
(290) |
Jul
(89) |
Aug
(96) |
Sep
(62) |
Oct
(137) |
Nov
(226) |
Dec
(181) |
2018 |
Jan
(139) |
Feb
(244) |
Mar
(200) |
Apr
(66) |
May
(138) |
Jun
(111) |
Jul
(265) |
Aug
(291) |
Sep
(232) |
Oct
(233) |
Nov
(247) |
Dec
(397) |
2019 |
Jan
(298) |
Feb
(217) |
Mar
(176) |
Apr
(248) |
May
(147) |
Jun
(143) |
Jul
(78) |
Aug
(215) |
Sep
(230) |
Oct
(295) |
Nov
(205) |
Dec
(266) |
2020 |
Jan
(186) |
Feb
(102) |
Mar
(95) |
Apr
(428) |
May
(294) |
Jun
(45) |
Jul
(48) |
Aug
(267) |
Sep
(171) |
Oct
(135) |
Nov
(32) |
Dec
(80) |
2021 |
Jan
(77) |
Feb
(31) |
Mar
(61) |
Apr
(41) |
May
(33) |
Jun
(55) |
Jul
(45) |
Aug
(26) |
Sep
(14) |
Oct
(38) |
Nov
(58) |
Dec
(23) |
2022 |
Jan
(62) |
Feb
(30) |
Mar
(51) |
Apr
(74) |
May
(26) |
Jun
(8) |
Jul
(6) |
Aug
(8) |
Sep
(14) |
Oct
(7) |
Nov
(14) |
Dec
(45) |
2023 |
Jan
(30) |
Feb
(12) |
Mar
(12) |
Apr
(8) |
May
(22) |
Jun
(17) |
Jul
|
Aug
(14) |
Sep
(50) |
Oct
(11) |
Nov
(2) |
Dec
|
2024 |
Jan
(10) |
Feb
(3) |
Mar
(17) |
Apr
(3) |
May
|
Jun
(8) |
Jul
(5) |
Aug
(2) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
From: Ron J. <ron...@co...> - 2014-01-23 03:10:25
|
If it's the Word Of The Creator Of The Universe, then pretty much by definition it's reliable. So, by "supporting documents" he probably means the Talmud, Pseudepigraphal & Apocryphal books. On 01/22/2014 08:48 PM, Eric Fort wrote: > Where are you or anyone for that matter finding records from that far > back, especially reliable records, that link from even the time of > christ to present day much less records that definitively link into > any known biblical line? > > Eric > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Levi gene <k1n...@ya...> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I was wondering if anyone has a genealogy as recorded in the Bible and >> supporting documents? I am starting on just imputing people and their >> relationships into Gramps. I have 277 people so far in the genealogy tree, >> starting from Adam. -- Carrot juice constitutes murder; Greenhouses prisons for slaves. |
From: Ron J. <ron...@co...> - 2014-01-23 02:52:41
|
Ancestry.com might have one. On 01/22/2014 08:32 PM, Levi gene wrote: > Hi, > > I was wondering if anyone has a genealogy as recorded in the Bible and > supporting documents? I am starting on just imputing people and their > relationships into Gramps. I have 277 people so far in the genealogy tree, > starting from Adam. > > Thanks for any info! > Levi > -- Carrot juice constitutes murder; Greenhouses prisons for slaves. |
From: Eric F. <eri...@gm...> - 2014-01-23 02:49:22
|
Where are you or anyone for that matter finding records from that far back, especially reliable records, that link from even the time of christ to present day much less records that definitively link into any known biblical line? Eric On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Levi gene <k1n...@ya...> wrote: > Hi, > > I was wondering if anyone has a genealogy as recorded in the Bible and > supporting documents? I am starting on just imputing people and their > relationships into Gramps. I have 277 people so far in the genealogy tree, > starting from Adam. > > Thanks for any info! > Levi > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. > Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For > Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. > Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users > |
From: Levi g. <k1n...@ya...> - 2014-01-23 02:32:37
|
Hi, I was wondering if anyone has a genealogy as recorded in the Bible and supporting documents? I am starting on just imputing people and their relationships into Gramps. I have 277 people so far in the genealogy tree, starting from Adam. Thanks for any info! Levi |
From: Nick H. <nic...@ho...> - 2014-01-22 22:14:41
|
On 22/01/14 21:08, Enno Borgsteede wrote: >> The one that I was thinking about showed backlinks of backlinks. So it >> >gave events for sources instead of citations. > Ah, ok. That's nice. And I would even go a step further, like starting > at the author. That may be more difficult, because I think authors are > not objects in Gramps, that you can (back)link from. > > Reason to ask is that I like to group sources by author, to get events > associated with say, a specific church or civil authority, census > district, etc. Author is agent in GedcomX, and can of course also be a > cousin that you get information from. You could write a gramplet to display events for a source author, but this would not be a very natural application for a gramplet. Most gramplets respond to a change in the active object. The best way to display this information would be in a report. Unfortunately, filters don't seem to work. There is no "Events for having the citation filter" rule, and there is no "Sources having the <parameters>" rule. Nick. |
From: Enno B. <enn...@gm...> - 2014-01-22 21:08:26
|
Hi Nick, > The one that I was thinking about showed backlinks of backlinks. So it > gave events for sources instead of citations. Ah, ok. That's nice. And I would even go a step further, like starting at the author. That may be more difficult, because I think authors are not objects in Gramps, that you can (back)link from. Reason to ask is that I like to group sources by author, to get events associated with say, a specific church or civil authority, census district, etc. Author is agent in GedcomX, and can of course also be a cousin that you get information from. > I did something similar for events. The Participants gramplet shows > all people that are participants of an event. It follows any family > back to the father and mother. You can find it in the add-ons repository. Thanks. Enno |
From: Jerome <rom...@ya...> - 2014-01-22 10:35:07
|
Note, I vaguely remember some fixes on backlinks gramplet into gramps40! It was rather around performance, more details and tests on bug #7231[1]. OK, my test case was a little bit stupid, but Doug has found callback issues. eg, "keep calling functions when we should not. The limits are a symptom, but the root cause is that we need to wait before calling some of these functions again (or perhaps interrupting a function call that we no longer need because we have moved to the next row). Even on my computer (which is very fast) with lots of resources, it crashes, or runs very slowly." I tried to use backlinks of backlinks of backlinks on RepositoriesReport with options! ie. Repository -> Sources -> Citations -> Events In theory, we should be able to still get these informations quickly, but it has been limited to Citations; = not too much deeper. [1] https://www.gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=7231 Le mar. 21 janv. 2014 at 22:01,Nick Hall <nic...@ho...> a écrit : > On 21/01/14 20:44, Enno Borgsteede wrote: >>> I seem to remember writing a gramplet to do this, but didn't make >>> it >>> >public. What exactly are you looking for? >>> >> Looks like it's already there, as references. It shows where a >> citation >> is used, and that's what I looked for. >> >> So, I was asking the obvious.:-) >> > The one that I was thinking about showed backlinks of backlinks. So > it > gave events for sources instead of citations. > > I did something similar for events. The Participants gramplet shows > all people that are participants of an event. It follows any family > back to the father and mother. You can find it in the add-ons > repository. > > > Nick. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. > Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For > Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. > Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users > |
From: Tony P. <to...@pr...> - 2014-01-22 10:29:36
|
Thanks for the interest Nick. Multi-person events are essential for recording history, but you need an extensible Role system to make it work. Luckily, I can add new Roles (& other types) easily using namespaces. Re: Groups (that I use for modelling families), I'll be revisiting this in a couple of weeks. I'm not happy with the way that I slotted the entity into my schema. If I make it a first-class citizen, like Person & Place, then it becomes incredibly powerful and I can model virtually anything. Plus I have a great idea to demonstrate it. I can drop interested people a line when I've published something. I hope people aren't getting annoyed with me chiming in now-and-then. I don't want it to sound like I'm hijacking threads to promote STEMMA. One of the goals of that project was to investigate solutions that no one else was looking at, and then to raise awareness of them. If you see that some of those ideas might help the gramps product then that's fantastic Tony Proctor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Hall" <nic...@ho...> To: <gra...@li...> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:07 PM Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Documenting relationships - am I missingsomething obvious? > On 21/01/14 08:32, Tony Proctor wrote: >> My own software - which\I'm afraid is non-commercial - stores a >> representation of relationships against the corresponding data source: >> http://parallax-viewpoint.blogspot.com/2014/01/role-of-role.html. This >> means >> the OP's case is easily handled, just as when data sources disagree on >> someone's date-of-birth. Also, in both cases, the conclusion >> dates/relationships can be constructed separately based on all that >> differing evidence. >> >> Sorry for the digression. I know it isn't vey relevant in a Gramps >> thread. >> > Tony, > > This is interesting because it is possible to do something very similar > in Gramps. > > Event reference objects, which connect people to events, hold a role. > In the census add-ons, I also store attributes in the event reference > objects. The census event is linked to a citation. This works quite > well for entering census data and comparing textual attributes. > > However, there are not many pre-defined values for the role and using > custom values causes problems. The roles are displayed in reports and > the values of PRIMARY and FAMILY are used to determine the main > participant of an event. So I ended up using another attribute > (Relation) to store the role. > > Things got worse when I wrote a similar add-on for marriages. In > Gramps, events such as marriage and divorce are linked to a family, > rather than to the two people involved. This means I would have to use > attributes such as 'Groom Age' and 'Bride Age' rather than 'Age'. > Although this is possible, I was never happy with the design, and kept > my new add-ons private. > > Looking at your STEMMA model, I think that the way you handle families > is a better design. Allowing more than just a text type in properties > is also a good idea. Perhaps these are a couple of enhancements we > could consider for Gramps? > > Nick. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. > Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For > Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. > Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users |
From: Nick H. <nic...@ho...> - 2014-01-21 23:07:28
|
On 21/01/14 08:32, Tony Proctor wrote: > My own software - which\I'm afraid is non-commercial - stores a > representation of relationships against the corresponding data source: > http://parallax-viewpoint.blogspot.com/2014/01/role-of-role.html. This means > the OP's case is easily handled, just as when data sources disagree on > someone's date-of-birth. Also, in both cases, the conclusion > dates/relationships can be constructed separately based on all that > differing evidence. > > Sorry for the digression. I know it isn't vey relevant in a Gramps thread. > Tony, This is interesting because it is possible to do something very similar in Gramps. Event reference objects, which connect people to events, hold a role. In the census add-ons, I also store attributes in the event reference objects. The census event is linked to a citation. This works quite well for entering census data and comparing textual attributes. However, there are not many pre-defined values for the role and using custom values causes problems. The roles are displayed in reports and the values of PRIMARY and FAMILY are used to determine the main participant of an event. So I ended up using another attribute (Relation) to store the role. Things got worse when I wrote a similar add-on for marriages. In Gramps, events such as marriage and divorce are linked to a family, rather than to the two people involved. This means I would have to use attributes such as 'Groom Age' and 'Bride Age' rather than 'Age'. Although this is possible, I was never happy with the design, and kept my new add-ons private. Looking at your STEMMA model, I think that the way you handle families is a better design. Allowing more than just a text type in properties is also a good idea. Perhaps these are a couple of enhancements we could consider for Gramps? Nick. |
From: Nick H. <nic...@ho...> - 2014-01-21 21:01:49
|
On 21/01/14 20:44, Enno Borgsteede wrote: >> I seem to remember writing a gramplet to do this, but didn't make it >> >public. What exactly are you looking for? > Looks like it's already there, as references. It shows where a citation > is used, and that's what I looked for. > > So, I was asking the obvious.:-) The one that I was thinking about showed backlinks of backlinks. So it gave events for sources instead of citations. I did something similar for events. The Participants gramplet shows all people that are participants of an event. It follows any family back to the father and mother. You can find it in the add-ons repository. Nick. |
From: Enno B. <enn...@gm...> - 2014-01-21 20:44:35
|
Hi Nick, > The Citations gramplet should show all citations for a person, > including citations for events. The Source Media gramplet will do the > same, but also give you a thumbnail of citation media. Double-clicking > will let you view the image in the default viewer. Looks like I forgot about that. I found the Citations gramplet in the bottom window ... >> And when I think of it, there may be a gramplet for that, I don't know. >> I have the same wish for the other way around, btw. > I seem to remember writing a gramplet to do this, but didn't make it > public. What exactly are you looking for? Looks like it's already there, as references. It shows where a citation is used, and that's what I looked for. So, I was asking the obvious. :-) cheers, Enno |
From: Peter M. <pet...@ho...> - 2014-01-21 20:41:43
|
Hi, I am wondering if it is possible to have a printout of a tree that does not show the full names of living people. I was thinking of a filter along the lines of "IF Born after [date] AND NOT Dead, change name to 'Living Person'" Does this or anything similar exist? It is the sort of thing that Ancestry and wikitrees does to protect living people. Thanks, Peter M. -- View this message in context: http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/Censorship-on-Prints-tp4664378.html Sent from the GRAMPS - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Nick H. <nic...@ho...> - 2014-01-21 17:16:06
|
On 21/01/14 15:08, Enno Borgsteede wrote: > When I have the patience for it, which is quite often not the case, I > try store every piece of evidence, not matter whether it's an email or a > record on a web page, in a Gramps citation. I write citation here, not > source, because it allows me to group emails from a single author, or > records from a single site. I also create sources to hold a group of related sources. I find it looks better in the interface. > > In most cases, I then connect citations to events, not relationships. > That is because in most cases, the citation reflects a single birth, > marriage, or death record, which I consider proof for an event, which > then implies a relationship. The vast majority of my citations are connected to events. Some are connected to attributes. > > In some cases, you don't find direct information about an event in a > document, for instance when you use a census. In that, you can use the > ages of the family members as a sort of proof for birth events, with > approximate dates, but in general a census has no proof for a marriage > event, in which case, it can probably be better used as evidence for the > relation itself. Same for genealogies that you find on the web. The Overview gramplet is useful for displaying Age, Condition (Marital Status), Occupation and Where Born attributes connected to event references. > In this case, conflicting evidence, can most times be translated to > conflicting events, like multiple births for a single person. Gramps can > perfectly work with that. > > One problem I see is that evidence (citations) for events is not shown > when you look at a persons data. You have to select an event for that, > and I would love for Gramps to be expanded in such a way that all > citations for events can be seen without clicking each individual one. The Citations gramplet should show all citations for a person, including citations for events. The Source Media gramplet will do the same, but also give you a thumbnail of citation media. Double-clicking will let you view the image in the default viewer. > > And when I think of it, there may be a gramplet for that, I don't know. > I have the same wish for the other way around, btw. I seem to remember writing a gramplet to do this, but didn't make it public. What exactly are you looking for? Nick. |
From: Martin S. <mar...@ma...> - 2014-01-21 16:28:25
|
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 08:39:53PM -0600, dasunt wrote: > >I'm wondering how people document relationships in such a way to easily >find it later. > >Say I have a man, Bart Simpson (yes, we're going with an easy example >here), and document #1 shows that Maggie is his sister. Through Maggie, >I find document #2 that links Maggie to her parents Homer and Marge >Simpson. That leads me to document #3, which links Homer and Marge to >their children Bart, Lisa and Maggie. Lisa then leads me to document #4 >that links Mona Simpson as her (presumably paternal) grandmother. > >Then a year goes by, I'm looking at some other data, and it conflicts >with what I have. > >How do I store the evidence for relationships in order to easily >retrieve it later? doc#1: Bart Simpson doc#1: sister, Maggie doc#2: Maggie doc#2: father, Homer Simpson doc#2: mother, Marge Simpson doc#3: Homer & Marge doc#3: child, Bart doc#3: child, Lisa doc#3: child, Maggie doc#4: Lisa doc#4: grandmother, Mona Simpson I understand that some people like to store this part of the record outside their genealogy software, in a spreadsheet, for example. That seems a reasonable way to do it, if you regard Gramps merely as a tool to hold and display your conclusions. Inside Gramps, perhaps you could try storing it as citation data, so: Families (Homer & Marge) -> Child ref editor (Bart) -> Source citation (doc#1) -> Citation info -> Data (sister, Maggie) I have no idea how well this would work, but Families seems the right place, and you need (?) to keep it with both Bart and the source. The catch could come at the 'easily retrieve' (and display) stage. M. |
From: Enno B. <enn...@gm...> - 2014-01-21 15:08:47
|
Hello > I'm wondering how people document relationships in such a way to easily > find it later. > > Say I have a man, Bart Simpson (yes, we're going with an easy example > here), and document #1 shows that Maggie is his sister. Through Maggie, > I find document #2 that links Maggie to her parents Homer and Marge > Simpson. That leads me to document #3, which links Homer and Marge to > their children Bart, Lisa and Maggie. Lisa then leads me to document #4 > that links Mona Simpson as her (presumably paternal) grandmother. > > Then a year goes by, I'm looking at some other data, and it conflicts > with what I have. > > How do I store the evidence for relationships in order to easily > retrieve it later? When I have the patience for it, which is quite often not the case, I try store every piece of evidence, not matter whether it's an email or a record on a web page, in a Gramps citation. I write citation here, not source, because it allows me to group emails from a single author, or records from a single site. In most cases, I then connect citations to events, not relationships. That is because in most cases, the citation reflects a single birth, marriage, or death record, which I consider proof for an event, which then implies a relationship. In some cases, you don't find direct information about an event in a document, for instance when you use a census. In that, you can use the ages of the family members as a sort of proof for birth events, with approximate dates, but in general a census has no proof for a marriage event, in which case, it can probably be better used as evidence for the relation itself. Same for genealogies that you find on the web. In this case, conflicting evidence, can most times be translated to conflicting events, like multiple births for a single person. Gramps can perfectly work with that. One problem I see is that evidence (citations) for events is not shown when you look at a persons data. You have to select an event for that, and I would love for Gramps to be expanded in such a way that all citations for events can be seen without clicking each individual one. And when I think of it, there may be a gramplet for that, I don't know. I have the same wish for the other way around, btw. regards, Enno |
From: Jerome <rom...@ya...> - 2014-01-21 11:18:07
|
See also https://www.gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:GEPS_001:_Relationship_type_event_link Le mar. 21 janv. 2014 at 12:12,Jerome <rom...@ya...> a écrit : > > It was one of the first Gramps Enhancement Proposals (GEPS), > inherited > from Gedcom structure! Feel free to complete the current page[1]. > > > [1] > https://www.gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=GEPS_001:_Relationship_type_event_link > > > Le mar. 21 janv. 2014 at 9:57,paul womack <pw...@pa...> a > écrit : >> Tony Proctor wrote: (of other software) >> >> Gramps *does* explicitly store relationships; >> >> In the family dialog, when you click on a child, you open >> the Child Reference Editor (not the child editor, which is just a >> person). >> >> A child reference can carry as many separate citations and notes >> as any other piece of data in Gramps. >> >> The biggest problem is that if you have a person represented >> as a probably/possible child of multiple families, most of >> the tree drawing software will go a bit nuts. >> >> But the database will have no trouble storing what you wish >> to represent. >> >> BugBear >> >>> This is probably not relevant to the OP's question, Mark, but I >>> would like >>> to correct something. >>> >>>>> yet genealogical software does not cater for probabilistic >>>>> relationships >>>>> >>>>> >>> My own software - which\I'm afraid is non-commercial - stores a >>> representation of relationships against the corresponding data >>> source: >>> http://parallax-viewpoint.blogspot.com/2014/01/role-of-role.html. >>> This means >>> the OP's case is easily handled, just as when data sources >>> disagree >>> on >>> someone's date-of-birth. Also, in both cases, the conclusion >>> dates/relationships can be constructed separately based on all >>> that >>> differing evidence. >>> >>> Sorry for the digression. I know it isn't vey relevant in a >>> Gramps >>> thread. >>> >>> Tony Proctor >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Mark" <mp...@pa...> >>> To: <gra...@li...> >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:17 AM >>> Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Documenting relationships - am I >>> missingsomething obvious? >>> >>> >>>> Is this an example of the general problem that all documentation >>>> is only >>>> ever >>>> probablistic, yet genealogical software does not cater for >>>> probablistic >>>> relationships; it demands that two individuals either are or are >>>> not >>>> connected. Like a lot of other researchers, I imagine, I find I >>>> am >>>> dealing >>>> with the middle ground much of the time - where there is more >>>> than >>>> one >>>> possible connection, but no evidence that could be deemed >>>> conclusive. >>>> >>>> I don't have an answer to this. I've separated from my extended >>>> family >>>> tree >>>> of 1,800 individuals a small subset of close ancestors whose >>>> connections >>>> are >>>> almost certain (whatever I mean by that), and I have chosen to >>>> focus all >>>> my >>>> efforts on documenting their lives, while effectively ignoring >>>> the >>>> rest. >>>> >>>> The sort of problem I encounter is as follows: >>>> >>>> 1. I find a marriage record that names the fathers of a known >>>> bride and >>>> groom (B&G). >>>> 2. I then find five individuals with G's father's name, all born >>>> in B&G's >>>> village over a period of, say, ten years, 25-35 years before >>>> B&G's >>>> marriage. >>>> They all have some probability of being G's father. >>>> 3. I then find that one lived on the same lane as G. >>>> 4. I find that two had the same occupation as G. >>>> >>>> I sometimes feel that there should be some way of weighing such >>>> information, >>>> without making a commitment to one and only one connection. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> View this message in context: >>>> >>>> >>>> http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/Documenting-relationships-am-I-missing-something-obvious-tp4664345p4664346.html >>>> Sent from the GRAMPS - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. >>>> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For >>>> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In >>>> Between. >>>> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. >>>> >>>> >>>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gramps-users mailing list >>>> Gra...@li... >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. >>> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For >>> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In >>> Between. >>> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. >>> >>> >>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gramps-users mailing list >>> Gra...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. >> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For >> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In >> Between. >> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. >> >> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk >> _______________________________________________ >> Gramps-users mailing list >> Gra...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. > Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For > Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. > Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users > |
From: Jerome <rom...@ya...> - 2014-01-21 11:13:15
|
It was one of the first Gramps Enhancement Proposals (GEPS), inherited from Gedcom structure! Feel free to complete the current page[1]. [1] https://www.gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=GEPS_001:_Relationship_type_event_link Le mar. 21 janv. 2014 at 9:57,paul womack <pw...@pa...> a écrit : > Tony Proctor wrote: (of other software) > > Gramps *does* explicitly store relationships; > > In the family dialog, when you click on a child, you open > the Child Reference Editor (not the child editor, which is just a > person). > > A child reference can carry as many separate citations and notes > as any other piece of data in Gramps. > > The biggest problem is that if you have a person represented > as a probably/possible child of multiple families, most of > the tree drawing software will go a bit nuts. > > But the database will have no trouble storing what you wish > to represent. > > BugBear > >> This is probably not relevant to the OP's question, Mark, but I >> would like >> to correct something. >> >>>> yet genealogical software does not cater for probabilistic >>>> relationships >>>> >> My own software - which\I'm afraid is non-commercial - stores a >> representation of relationships against the corresponding data >> source: >> http://parallax-viewpoint.blogspot.com/2014/01/role-of-role.html. >> This means >> the OP's case is easily handled, just as when data sources disagree >> on >> someone's date-of-birth. Also, in both cases, the conclusion >> dates/relationships can be constructed separately based on all that >> differing evidence. >> >> Sorry for the digression. I know it isn't vey relevant in a Gramps >> thread. >> >> Tony Proctor >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Mark" <mp...@pa...> >> To: <gra...@li...> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:17 AM >> Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Documenting relationships - am I >> missingsomething obvious? >> >> >>> Is this an example of the general problem that all documentation >>> is only >>> ever >>> probablistic, yet genealogical software does not cater for >>> probablistic >>> relationships; it demands that two individuals either are or are >>> not >>> connected. Like a lot of other researchers, I imagine, I find I am >>> dealing >>> with the middle ground much of the time - where there is more than >>> one >>> possible connection, but no evidence that could be deemed >>> conclusive. >>> >>> I don't have an answer to this. I've separated from my extended >>> family >>> tree >>> of 1,800 individuals a small subset of close ancestors whose >>> connections >>> are >>> almost certain (whatever I mean by that), and I have chosen to >>> focus all >>> my >>> efforts on documenting their lives, while effectively ignoring the >>> rest. >>> >>> The sort of problem I encounter is as follows: >>> >>> 1. I find a marriage record that names the fathers of a known >>> bride and >>> groom (B&G). >>> 2. I then find five individuals with G's father's name, all born >>> in B&G's >>> village over a period of, say, ten years, 25-35 years before B&G's >>> marriage. >>> They all have some probability of being G's father. >>> 3. I then find that one lived on the same lane as G. >>> 4. I find that two had the same occupation as G. >>> >>> I sometimes feel that there should be some way of weighing such >>> information, >>> without making a commitment to one and only one connection. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> >>> http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/Documenting-relationships-am-I-missing-something-obvious-tp4664345p4664346.html >>> Sent from the GRAMPS - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. >>> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For >>> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In >>> Between. >>> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. >>> >>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gramps-users mailing list >>> Gra...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. >> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For >> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In >> Between. >> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. >> >> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk >> _______________________________________________ >> Gramps-users mailing list >> Gra...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. > Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For > Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. > Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users > |
From: Tony P. <to...@pr...> - 2014-01-21 09:44:35
|
Thanks Paul. I didn't mean to start a compare-and-contrast. The main reason I mentioned that "other software" was that as a part of its evidence structure, those Role-based personal relationships can be probabilistic.Hence, that cited sentence was not strictly correct. Tony Proctor ----- Original Message ----- From: "paul womack" <pw...@pa...> To: "Mark" <mp...@pa...>; <gra...@li...> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Documenting relationships - am I missingsomething obvious? > Tony Proctor wrote: (of other software) > > Gramps *does* explicitly store relationships; > > In the family dialog, when you click on a child, you open > the Child Reference Editor (not the child editor, which is just a person). > > A child reference can carry as many separate citations and notes > as any other piece of data in Gramps. > > The biggest problem is that if you have a person represented > as a probably/possible child of multiple families, most of > the tree drawing software will go a bit nuts. > > But the database will have no trouble storing what you wish > to represent. > > BugBear > >> This is probably not relevant to the OP's question, Mark, but I would >> like >> to correct something. >> >>>> yet genealogical software does not cater for probabilistic >>>> relationships >> >> My own software - which\I'm afraid is non-commercial - stores a >> representation of relationships against the corresponding data source: >> http://parallax-viewpoint.blogspot.com/2014/01/role-of-role.html. This >> means >> the OP's case is easily handled, just as when data sources disagree on >> someone's date-of-birth. Also, in both cases, the conclusion >> dates/relationships can be constructed separately based on all that >> differing evidence. >> >> Sorry for the digression. I know it isn't vey relevant in a Gramps >> thread. >> >> Tony Proctor >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Mark" <mp...@pa...> >> To: <gra...@li...> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:17 AM >> Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Documenting relationships - am I >> missingsomething obvious? >> >> >>> Is this an example of the general problem that all documentation is only >>> ever >>> probablistic, yet genealogical software does not cater for probablistic >>> relationships; it demands that two individuals either are or are not >>> connected. Like a lot of other researchers, I imagine, I find I am >>> dealing >>> with the middle ground much of the time - where there is more than one >>> possible connection, but no evidence that could be deemed conclusive. >>> >>> I don't have an answer to this. I've separated from my extended family >>> tree >>> of 1,800 individuals a small subset of close ancestors whose connections >>> are >>> almost certain (whatever I mean by that), and I have chosen to focus all >>> my >>> efforts on documenting their lives, while effectively ignoring the rest. >>> >>> The sort of problem I encounter is as follows: >>> >>> 1. I find a marriage record that names the fathers of a known bride and >>> groom (B&G). >>> 2. I then find five individuals with G's father's name, all born in >>> B&G's >>> village over a period of, say, ten years, 25-35 years before B&G's >>> marriage. >>> They all have some probability of being G's father. >>> 3. I then find that one lived on the same lane as G. >>> 4. I find that two had the same occupation as G. >>> >>> I sometimes feel that there should be some way of weighing such >>> information, >>> without making a commitment to one and only one connection. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/Documenting-relationships-am-I-missing-something-obvious-tp4664345p4664346.html >>> Sent from the GRAMPS - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. >>> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For >>> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. >>> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. >>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gramps-users mailing list >>> Gra...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. >> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For >> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. >> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. >> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk >> _______________________________________________ >> Gramps-users mailing list >> Gra...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. > Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For > Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. > Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users |
From: paul w. <pw...@pa...> - 2014-01-21 08:58:12
|
Tony Proctor wrote: (of other software) Gramps *does* explicitly store relationships; In the family dialog, when you click on a child, you open the Child Reference Editor (not the child editor, which is just a person). A child reference can carry as many separate citations and notes as any other piece of data in Gramps. The biggest problem is that if you have a person represented as a probably/possible child of multiple families, most of the tree drawing software will go a bit nuts. But the database will have no trouble storing what you wish to represent. BugBear > This is probably not relevant to the OP's question, Mark, but I would like > to correct something. > >>> yet genealogical software does not cater for probabilistic relationships > > My own software - which\I'm afraid is non-commercial - stores a > representation of relationships against the corresponding data source: > http://parallax-viewpoint.blogspot.com/2014/01/role-of-role.html. This means > the OP's case is easily handled, just as when data sources disagree on > someone's date-of-birth. Also, in both cases, the conclusion > dates/relationships can be constructed separately based on all that > differing evidence. > > Sorry for the digression. I know it isn't vey relevant in a Gramps thread. > > Tony Proctor > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark" <mp...@pa...> > To: <gra...@li...> > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:17 AM > Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Documenting relationships - am I > missingsomething obvious? > > >> Is this an example of the general problem that all documentation is only >> ever >> probablistic, yet genealogical software does not cater for probablistic >> relationships; it demands that two individuals either are or are not >> connected. Like a lot of other researchers, I imagine, I find I am dealing >> with the middle ground much of the time - where there is more than one >> possible connection, but no evidence that could be deemed conclusive. >> >> I don't have an answer to this. I've separated from my extended family >> tree >> of 1,800 individuals a small subset of close ancestors whose connections >> are >> almost certain (whatever I mean by that), and I have chosen to focus all >> my >> efforts on documenting their lives, while effectively ignoring the rest. >> >> The sort of problem I encounter is as follows: >> >> 1. I find a marriage record that names the fathers of a known bride and >> groom (B&G). >> 2. I then find five individuals with G's father's name, all born in B&G's >> village over a period of, say, ten years, 25-35 years before B&G's >> marriage. >> They all have some probability of being G's father. >> 3. I then find that one lived on the same lane as G. >> 4. I find that two had the same occupation as G. >> >> I sometimes feel that there should be some way of weighing such >> information, >> without making a commitment to one and only one connection. >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/Documenting-relationships-am-I-missing-something-obvious-tp4664345p4664346.html >> Sent from the GRAMPS - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. >> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For >> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. >> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. >> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk >> _______________________________________________ >> Gramps-users mailing list >> Gra...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. > Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For > Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. > Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users > |
From: Tony P. <to...@pr...> - 2014-01-21 08:32:55
|
This is probably not relevant to the OP's question, Mark, but I would like to correct something. >> yet genealogical software does not cater for probabilistic relationships My own software - which\I'm afraid is non-commercial - stores a representation of relationships against the corresponding data source: http://parallax-viewpoint.blogspot.com/2014/01/role-of-role.html. This means the OP's case is easily handled, just as when data sources disagree on someone's date-of-birth. Also, in both cases, the conclusion dates/relationships can be constructed separately based on all that differing evidence. Sorry for the digression. I know it isn't vey relevant in a Gramps thread. Tony Proctor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark" <mp...@pa...> To: <gra...@li...> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:17 AM Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Documenting relationships - am I missingsomething obvious? > Is this an example of the general problem that all documentation is only > ever > probablistic, yet genealogical software does not cater for probablistic > relationships; it demands that two individuals either are or are not > connected. Like a lot of other researchers, I imagine, I find I am dealing > with the middle ground much of the time - where there is more than one > possible connection, but no evidence that could be deemed conclusive. > > I don't have an answer to this. I've separated from my extended family > tree > of 1,800 individuals a small subset of close ancestors whose connections > are > almost certain (whatever I mean by that), and I have chosen to focus all > my > efforts on documenting their lives, while effectively ignoring the rest. > > The sort of problem I encounter is as follows: > > 1. I find a marriage record that names the fathers of a known bride and > groom (B&G). > 2. I then find five individuals with G's father's name, all born in B&G's > village over a period of, say, ten years, 25-35 years before B&G's > marriage. > They all have some probability of being G's father. > 3. I then find that one lived on the same lane as G. > 4. I find that two had the same occupation as G. > > I sometimes feel that there should be some way of weighing such > information, > without making a commitment to one and only one connection. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/Documenting-relationships-am-I-missing-something-obvious-tp4664345p4664346.html > Sent from the GRAMPS - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. > Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For > Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. > Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users |
From: Mark <mp...@pa...> - 2014-01-21 03:18:06
|
Is this an example of the general problem that all documentation is only ever probablistic, yet genealogical software does not cater for probablistic relationships; it demands that two individuals either are or are not connected. Like a lot of other researchers, I imagine, I find I am dealing with the middle ground much of the time - where there is more than one possible connection, but no evidence that could be deemed conclusive. I don't have an answer to this. I've separated from my extended family tree of 1,800 individuals a small subset of close ancestors whose connections are almost certain (whatever I mean by that), and I have chosen to focus all my efforts on documenting their lives, while effectively ignoring the rest. The sort of problem I encounter is as follows: 1. I find a marriage record that names the fathers of a known bride and groom (B&G). 2. I then find five individuals with G's father's name, all born in B&G's village over a period of, say, ten years, 25-35 years before B&G's marriage. They all have some probability of being G's father. 3. I then find that one lived on the same lane as G. 4. I find that two had the same occupation as G. I sometimes feel that there should be some way of weighing such information, without making a commitment to one and only one connection. -- View this message in context: http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/Documenting-relationships-am-I-missing-something-obvious-tp4664345p4664346.html Sent from the GRAMPS - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: dasunt <da...@gm...> - 2014-01-21 02:40:07
|
Hello, I'm wondering how people document relationships in such a way to easily find it later. Say I have a man, Bart Simpson (yes, we're going with an easy example here), and document #1 shows that Maggie is his sister. Through Maggie, I find document #2 that links Maggie to her parents Homer and Marge Simpson. That leads me to document #3, which links Homer and Marge to their children Bart, Lisa and Maggie. Lisa then leads me to document #4 that links Mona Simpson as her (presumably paternal) grandmother. Then a year goes by, I'm looking at some other data, and it conflicts with what I have. How do I store the evidence for relationships in order to easily retrieve it later? Thanks |
From: Michael T. <mic...@gm...> - 2014-01-21 00:35:24
|
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Tim Lyons <guy...@gm...> wrote: > I don't know whether the numbering should start at zero or one; it probably > doesn't matter very much, and zero (which seems to be the default at the > moment) is probably perfectly fine. To non-programmers, it is a poor choice (IMNSHO) and should be altered to behave so that the very first entry you put in the database starts at "1" > However starting with a two character ID That was done only as an example for the purpose of illustrating the problem I had found. However, if the ID string is changed from "I%04d" to "I%d" the IDs are kept without the leading zeros which might be confusing to others. (I'm using 5 digit 'cause I'm a neat freak.) -- << MCT >> Michael C Tiernan. http://www.linkedin.com/in/mtiernan Non Impediti Ratione Cogatationis |
From: Tim L. <guy...@gm...> - 2014-01-21 00:11:02
|
Nick Hall-6 wrote > On 20/01/14 20:27, Michael Tiernan wrote: >> First of the batch. In Gramps V4, what's the difference between the >> contents of the "Database Owner" and the contents of the "Researcher"? > > Researcher details are stored in the preferences, not in the database. > These details are used as the default for the Database Owner when a new > database is created. The Database Owner is stored in the database and > is used in exports. I think I probably wrote that in the Wiki, because I understood at the time that that was what I had been told. However, what is more important is what is not stated at all: If you go into the Edit Database Owner dialogue, and RIGHT-CLICK on the dialogue box, you get the option to copy the preferences to the DB or vice-versa. So, what you should do is complete the Researcher in the preferences dialogue, create your database and then if the Database Owner is not right, use the Edit Database Owner dialogue to copy the information from the preferences to the DB owner. Nick Hall-6 wrote >> Second, should the very first person entry into an empty (newly >> created) DB start at I0 (Eye-zero) The key issue is, shouldn't it be >> I1 (Eye-one)? > > Maybe. I don't know whether the numbering should start at zero or one; it probably doesn't matter very much, and zero (which seems to be the default at the moment) is probably perfectly fine. However starting with a two character ID is definitely a BAD IDEA! The problem is that when you get to 9 entries, the number of characters in the ID changes, and there have been problems in the past with having a mixture of lengths of identifier. We have tried to fix them, but it is still probably better to avoid them. The number of digits should be controlled by the entry in Preferences ID Formats, which (on my machine ) is x%04d, so IDs should have 4 digits (plus the starting letter). Regards, Tim. -- View this message in context: http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/First-of-a-list-of-questions-I-ll-be-asking-tp4664335p4664343.html Sent from the GRAMPS - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Brad R. <br...@fi...> - 2014-01-20 22:01:22
|
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:27:15 -0500 Michael Tiernan <mic...@gm...> wrote: Hello Michael, >created) DB start at I0 (Eye-zero) The key issue is, shouldn't it be >I1 (Eye-one)? If you want the first person to be I1, then it's possible to set that ID for them. Obviously, it must be available for use so is easiest to set with only one person in the DB. As Gramps only tracks the highest used ID, numbering will be continue from there, so long as I1 is consistent with the preference setting for numbering individuals. By default, all IDs are Xnnnn. That is, one letter followed by four digits. Preferences for IDs can be set as you wish, of course. -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" Why do they try to hide our past pulling down houses and build car parks Bricks & Mortar - The Jam |