From: Philip W. <wei...@gm...> - 2013-11-29 05:02:57
|
I'm trying to think of how to record information for people who don't appear directly in records, but who likely or certainly had to be some place. For instance, I have head of household censuses for one ancestor which I've recorded as census events for him. As this was in the 1840s, his wife had to be one of the people in the household (there's a count of women in the household), but that's something implied rather than recorded. I'm thinking of added her to the event with a role such as "Implied". But I don't know what the drawbacks of that approach are. Some reports won't include the event/person combo because of the non-primary role. Has anyone tried this approach? What other methods of recording this sort of thing could I use? Philip |
From: Martin S. <mar...@ma...> - 2013-11-29 06:17:16
|
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:02:51PM -0800, Philip Weiss wrote: >I'm trying to think of how to record information for people who don't appear >directly in records, but who likely or certainly had to be some place. For >instance, I have head of household censuses for one ancestor which I've >recorded as census events for him. As this was in the 1840s, his wife had to >be one of the people in the household (there's a count of women in the >household), but that's something implied rather than recorded. She might have been anywhere: next door, staying with her mother, caring for a friend, separated from her husband,... > >I'm thinking of added her to the event with a role such as "Implied". But I >don't know what the drawbacks of that approach are. Some reports won't include >the event/person combo because of the non-primary role. Has anyone tried this >approach? I think you should work from the evidence of your sources, not from the absence of evidence. M. |
From: Tony P. <to...@pr...> - 2013-11-29 08:51:34
|
I have separate Role and Status fields in my model so I use the Status field to indicate this sort of situation. A similar situation occurs on a marriage certificate. There may be evidence of the bride or groom's father, which has to be recorded, but it may also say "deceased" in brackets so they obviously weren't present. Using Role=Father and Status=Deceased then this is OK. Tony Proctor ----- Original Message ----- From: Philip Weiss To: gra...@li... Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 5:02 AM Subject: [Gramps-users] Implied presence I'm trying to think of how to record information for people who don't appear directly in records, but who likely or certainly had to be some place. For instance, I have head of household censuses for one ancestor which I've recorded as census events for him. As this was in the 1840s, his wife had to be one of the people in the household (there's a count of women in the household), but that's something implied rather than recorded. I'm thinking of added her to the event with a role such as "Implied". But I don't know what the drawbacks of that approach are. Some reports won't include the event/person combo because of the non-primary role. Has anyone tried this approach? What other methods of recording this sort of thing could I use? Philip ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349351&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Gramps-users mailing list Gra...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users |
From: paul w. <pw...@pa...> - 2013-11-29 08:59:20
|
Tony Proctor wrote: > I have separate Role and Status fields in my model so I use the Status field to indicate this sort of situation. > A similar situation occurs on a marriage certificate. There may be evidence of the bride or groom's father, which has to be recorded, but it may also say "deceased" in brackets so they obviously weren't present. Using Role=Father and Status=Deceased then this is OK. I record that in Gramps very simply; the father has NO role in the wedding, but the wedding certificated is cited as evidence for a Death event "before the date of the wedding". Sadly gramps won't automatically combine (mathematically speaking) multiple before,between,after dates to come up with a narrowest possible time window which would be helpful as one's research proceeds, and evidence accumulates. BugBear |
From: Tony P. <to...@pr...> - 2013-11-29 09:09:54
|
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 Tony Proctor ----- Original Message ----- From: "paul womack" <pw...@pa...> To: "Tony Proctor" <to...@pr...>; "Philip Weiss" <wei...@gm...>; <gra...@li...> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 8:59 AM Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Implied presence > Tony Proctor wrote: >> I have separate Role and Status fields in my model so I use the Status >> field to indicate this sort of situation. >> A similar situation occurs on a marriage certificate. There may be >> evidence of the bride or groom's father, which has to be recorded, but it >> may also say "deceased" in brackets so they obviously weren't present. >> Using Role=Father and Status=Deceased then this is OK. > > I record that in Gramps very simply; the father has NO role in the > wedding, but the wedding certificated is cited > as evidence for a Death event "before the date of the wedding". > > Sadly gramps won't automatically combine (mathematically speaking) > multiple > before,between,after dates to come up with a narrowest possible time > window > which would be helpful as one's research proceeds, and evidence > accumulates. > > BugBear |
From: paul w. <pw...@pa...> - 2013-11-29 09:29:35
|
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 |
From: Tony P. <to...@pr...> - 2013-11-29 09:51:10
|
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 development]. Tony Proctor ----- Original Message ----- From: "paul womack" <pw...@pa...> To: "Tony Proctor" <to...@pr...>; "Philip Weiss" <wei...@gm...>; <gra...@li...> 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 |
From: Peter G <sai...@ya...> - 2013-11-29 11:28:46
|
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? Peter >________________________________ > From: Tony Proctor <to...@pr...> > >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 >development]. > > Tony Proctor > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "paul womack" <pw...@pa...> >To: "Tony Proctor" <to...@pr...>; "Philip Weiss" ><wei...@gm...>; <gra...@li...> >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! >http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349351&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk >_______________________________________________ >Gramps-users mailing list >Gra...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users > > > |
From: Tony P. <to...@pr...> - 2013-11-29 12:31:55
|
You're almost there Peter :-) It's worth reading some of the questions & answers on the blog. The marriage certificate is a source of information for the marriage event, and would be attached to that event as you say. The bride/groom and witnesses are attached to the event with their respective roles. The fathers are too, even if they are deceased. This is covered in one of the blog questions but is also related to the start of this thread. The sources for the marriage yield properties (i.e. items of evidence) for all the persons connected to the event. For instance, the bride's age would be associated with the connection between her Person entity and the marriage Event. Similarly with the father's date of death. Remember that this is merely refactoring the evidence and sources according to the timeline and the relevant events. The final values attached directly to a Person entity for, say, date-of-birth are conclusions that are derived from that evidence, and would be linked to it using the rich-text reference note mechanism provided in STEMMA. Tony Proctor ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter G To: gra...@li... Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 11:28 AM Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Implied presence 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? Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tony Proctor <to...@pr...> 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 development]. Tony Proctor ----- Original Message ----- From: "paul womack" <pw...@pa...> To: "Tony Proctor" <to...@pr...>; "Philip Weiss" <wei...@gm...>; <gra...@li...> 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! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349351&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Gramps-users mailing list Gra...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349351&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Gramps-users mailing list Gra...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users |
From: Doug B. <dou...@gm...> - 2013-11-29 13:05:13
|
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 3:59 AM, paul womack <pw...@pa...> wrote: > Tony Proctor wrote: >> I have separate Role and Status fields in my model so I use the Status field to indicate this sort of situation. >> A similar situation occurs on a marriage certificate. There may be evidence of the bride or groom's father, which has to be recorded, but it may also say "deceased" in brackets so they obviously weren't present. Using Role=Father and Status=Deceased then this is OK. > > I record that in Gramps very simply; the father has NO role in the wedding, but the wedding certificated is cited > as evidence for a Death event "before the date of the wedding". > > Sadly gramps won't automatically combine (mathematically speaking) multiple > before,between,after dates to come up with a narrowest possible time window > which would be helpful as one's research proceeds, and evidence accumulates. Gramps does use dates in a manner a bit like this to determine if someone is alive (which is very important for determining privacy for sharing data). However, such code could be expanded, and also made into a user-accessible tool so that it could help you with other tasks. For example, just looking at all of the evidence of Events could show you an outlier... an event that doesn't overlap with the others. Perhaps that is incorrect data that you are aware of, or maybe it is an event that belongs to someone else. On a related note, Gramps 4.1 will have the ability to enter dates like "before today". That will be handy for search queries. Currently, Gramps couldn't handle "before birth date", but that doesn't mean you couldn't tag a date in a manner that will allow you to find it later, for revision. -Doug > 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! > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349351&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users |
From: Doug B. <dou...@gm...> - 2013-11-29 12:54:17
|
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Philip Weiss <wei...@gm...> wrote: > I'm trying to think of how to record information for people who don't appear > directly in records, but who likely or certainly had to be some place. For > instance, I have head of household censuses for one ancestor which I've > recorded as census events for him. As this was in the 1840s, his wife had > to be one of the people in the household (there's a count of women in the > household), but that's something implied rather than recorded. > > I'm thinking of added her to the event with a role such as "Implied". But I > don't know what the drawbacks of that approach are. Some reports won't > include the event/person combo because of the non-primary role. Has anyone > tried this approach? To adapt Tony's advice to Gramps as it now works, I'd suggest that you devise a reasonable representation as you have. If there are drawbacks, then we can address those. Gramps doesn't have two-tiered "evidence" and "conclusion" records, but there are things we can do toward that goal, or any other particular goal. Some guidelines: 1) Make sure that you record the actual data, with no interpretation, *someplace*. Currently, it is better to perhaps put the real, raw data in a note, and put the "probably correct" data into the fields. For example, if you see a date marked "Feb 31, 1783" it is better to put that in a note, and mark the date something like "about Feb 29, 1783". Why? Because a real date can be used as a place in time, whereas a invalid date is just text, and won't be used at all in timelines. 2) As Gramps changes, you want to have access to the original evidence so that you might adjust the fields. 3) Marking items as "Implied" (or tagging them) seems to be a good idea. Then you can find them again in the future, and re-evaluate, re-structure, etc. 4) If a particular report would work better for you if it could take this additional data into account, please make a Feature Request. Too many people think that reports are set in stone. But these are actually pretty easy to adjust to individual uses. 5) If there are common "best practices", we should discuss them here. (It would be great if Tony had such best practice advice on how to span where we are to where we want to be, both for Users and Developers.) Hope that helps, -Doug > What other methods of recording this sort of thing could I use? > > Philip > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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! > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349351&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users > |
From: Tony P. <to...@pr...> - 2013-11-29 13:04:05
|
I'd like to help where I can Doug. However, STEMMA is still an ongoing R&D project. Hence, I'm still finding my way in places, and it's a little early for best practices. Your note about separately recording what-was-written from how-it-was-interpreted is good advice. I'm just about to release another blog post (today or tomorrow) that touches on this same subject. I'm not suggesting anyone copy my approach entirely but I hope that seeing a very different approach is a source of inspiration. Tony Proctor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Blank" <dou...@gm...> To: "Philip Weiss" <wei...@gm...> Cc: <gra...@li...> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 12:54 PM Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Implied presence > > To adapt Tony's advice to Gramps as it now works, I'd suggest that > you devise a reasonable representation as you have. If there are > drawbacks, then we can address those. Gramps doesn't have two-tiered > "evidence" and "conclusion" records, but there are things we can do > toward that goal, or any other particular goal. Some guidelines: > > 1) Make sure that you record the actual data, with no interpretation, > *someplace*. Currently, it is better to perhaps put the real, raw data > in a note, and put the "probably correct" data into the fields. For > example, if you see a date marked "Feb 31, 1783" it is better to put > that in a note, and mark the date something like "about Feb 29, 1783". > Why? Because a real date can be used as a place in time, whereas a > invalid date is just text, and won't be used at all in timelines. > > 2) As Gramps changes, you want to have access to the original evidence > so that you might adjust the fields. > > 3) Marking items as "Implied" (or tagging them) seems to be a good > idea. Then you can find them again in the future, and re-evaluate, > re-structure, etc. > > 4) If a particular report would work better for you if it could take > this additional data into account, please make a Feature Request. Too > many people think that reports are set in stone. But these are > actually pretty easy to adjust to individual uses. > > 5) If there are common "best practices", we should discuss them here. > (It would be great if Tony had such best practice advice on how to > span where we are to where we want to be, both for Users and > Developers.) > > Hope that helps, > > -Doug > >> What other methods of recording this sort of thing could I use? >> >> Philip >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> 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! >> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349351&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk >> _______________________________________________ >> Gramps-users mailing list >> Gra...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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! > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349351&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users |