From: paul w. <pw...@pa...> - 2013-10-16 16:22:36
|
I have a case where a child appears on a census form with relationship to head as "grandchild". Now, hopfully in the fullness of time, the children will be found, their marriage found, and various baptism, census forms etc will tie everything together. But that all takes time, and may not be the most immediate priority. Question - what's the best/clearest way to represent a grandhild relationship in gramps, lacking the intermediate parents, just to keep track of things? BugBear |
From: David L M. <dlm...@gm...> - 2013-10-16 19:57:45
|
BugBear, I like to create placeholder parents. A suggestion I saw on here over a year ago is to use [-?-] for the first and/or last names where ever I don't know the details. Whenever I don't know a birth surname I will enclose the married surname in square brackets too. All this makes it very easy for reports/graphs as well as updating if/when the details show up. They also show up at the beginning of your person lists for periodic review. Just an idea I read here that works for me, Dave -----Original Message----- From: paul womack [mailto:pw...@pa...] Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 12:22 PM I have a case where a child appears on a census form with relationship to head as "grandchild". Now, hopfully in the fullness of time, the children will be found, their marriage found, and various baptism, census forms etc will tie everything together. But that all takes time, and may not be the most immediate priority. Question - what's the best/clearest way to represent a grandhild relationship in gramps, lacking the intermediate parents, just to keep track of things? BugBear |
From: Isaac B. <ben...@gm...> - 2013-10-16 20:14:43
|
Hi, On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:57 PM, "David L McMurray" <dlm...@gm...> wrote: > BugBear, > > I like to create placeholder parents. A suggestion I saw on here over a year > ago is to use [-?-] for the first and/or last names where ever I don't know > the details. Whenever I don't know a birth surname I will enclose the > married surname in square brackets too. All this makes it very easy for > reports/graphs as well as updating if/when the details show up. They also > show up at the beginning of your person lists for periodic review. This is good advice; just don't do what I did and create a person with no name. One of the Tools decided that I didn't need those people (who I know exist but don't yet have names to record). > Just an idea I read here that works for me, > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: paul womack [mailto:pw...@pa...] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 12:22 PM > > I have a case where a child appears on a census form with relationship to > head as "grandchild". > > Now, hopfully in the fullness of time, the children will be found, their > marriage found, and various baptism, census forms etc will tie everything > together. > > But that all takes time, and may not be the most immediate priority. > > Question - what's the best/clearest way to represent a grandhild > relationship in gramps, lacking the intermediate parents, just to keep track > of things? > > BugBear > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > October Webinars: Code for Performance > Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. > Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from > the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users |
From: Ron J. <ron...@co...> - 2013-10-16 20:09:41
|
I use FNU & LNU as placeholders. First Name Unknown Last Name Unknown On 10/16/2013 02:57 PM, David L McMurray wrote: > BugBear, > > I like to create placeholder parents. A suggestion I saw on here over a year > ago is to use [-?-] for the first and/or last names where ever I don't know > the details. Whenever I don't know a birth surname I will enclose the > married surname in square brackets too. All this makes it very easy for > reports/graphs as well as updating if/when the details show up. They also > show up at the beginning of your person lists for periodic review. > > Just an idea I read here that works for me, > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: paul womack [mailto:pw...@pa...] > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 12:22 PM > > I have a case where a child appears on a census form with relationship to > head as "grandchild". > > Now, hopfully in the fullness of time, the children will be found, their > marriage found, and various baptism, census forms etc will tie everything > together. > > But that all takes time, and may not be the most immediate priority. > > Question - what's the best/clearest way to represent a grandhild > relationship in gramps, lacking the intermediate parents, just to keep track > of things? > > BugBear -- "Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur" Petronius |
From: Enno B. <enn...@gm...> - 2013-10-16 20:24:36
|
Paul, > I have a case where a child appears on a census form > with relationship to head as "grandchild". > > Now, hopfully in the fullness of time, the children > will be found, their marriage found, and various > baptism, census forms etc will tie everything together. > > But that all takes time, and may not be the most immediate priority. > > Question - what's the best/clearest way to represent > a grandhild relationship in gramps, lacking the intermediate > parents, just to keep track of things? I would probably create that intermediate parent, as a person with the same surname as the head of the family on the census form, but without a given name and gender, and the child with the given name that you read on the form, but no surname. And add notes where appropriate. There's no need for constructs like FNU, LNU, or anything like that, because Gramps works very well without them, so they simply make no sense at all. See: http://www.tamurajones.net/FNULNUMNUUNK.xhtml regards, Enno |
From: LJ <bes...@gm...> - 2013-10-16 21:40:37
|
Personally, I create a 'ghost' child of the grandparents, of neutral sex (since even if the child has the grandparents' surname, the parent could be and often is an unmarried daughter). Once I have identified the parent I merge the '(unknown)' parent with the the known child of the grandparents. Others may have different ways of doing it, but that is mine. On 16/10/13 18:22, paul womack wrote: > I have a case where a child appears on a census form > with relationship to head as "grandchild". > > Now, hopfully in the fullness of time, the children > will be found, their marriage found, and various > baptism, census forms etc will tie everything together. > > But that all takes time, and may not be the most immediate priority. > > Question - what's the best/clearest way to represent > a grandhild relationship in gramps, lacking the intermediate > parents, just to keep track of things? > > BugBear > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > October Webinars: Code for Performance > Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. > Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from > the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users |
From: Tony P. <to...@pr...> - 2013-10-16 22:31:26
|
Not a good idea Ron. I'd recommend reading these articles: http://www.tamurajones.net/FNULNUMNUUNK.xhtml http://www.tamurajones.net/TheLnuFamilyMystery.xhtml Tony Proctor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Johnson" <ron...@co...> To: <gra...@li...> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 9:09 PM Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Grandchild "for now"? >I use FNU & LNU as placeholders. > First Name Unknown > Last Name Unknown > > On 10/16/2013 02:57 PM, David L McMurray wrote: >> BugBear, >> >> I like to create placeholder parents. A suggestion I saw on here over a >> year >> ago is to use [-?-] for the first and/or last names where ever I don't >> know >> the details. Whenever I don't know a birth surname I will enclose the >> married surname in square brackets too. All this makes it very easy for >> reports/graphs as well as updating if/when the details show up. They also >> show up at the beginning of your person lists for periodic review. >> >> Just an idea I read here that works for me, >> Dave >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: paul womack [mailto:pw...@pa...] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 12:22 PM >> >> I have a case where a child appears on a census form with relationship to >> head as "grandchild". >> >> Now, hopfully in the fullness of time, the children will be found, their >> marriage found, and various baptism, census forms etc will tie everything >> together. >> >> But that all takes time, and may not be the most immediate priority. >> >> Question - what's the best/clearest way to represent a grandhild >> relationship in gramps, lacking the intermediate parents, just to keep >> track >> of things? >> >> BugBear > > -- > "Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur" > Petronius > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > October Webinars: Code for Performance > Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. > Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most > from > the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users |
From: paul w. <pw...@pa...> - 2013-10-17 08:51:12
|
paul womack wrote: > > Question - what's the best/clearest way to represent > a grandhild relationship in gramps, lacking the intermediate > parents, just to keep track of things? Thanks to all for your replies. With variations, the answer is "create the intermediate parents". I note (from previous list traffic) that some genealogists object (quite strongly) to creating a "person" where only a name is known :-) BugBear |
From: Ron J. <ron...@co...> - 2013-10-17 15:45:55
|
On 10/17/2013 03:51 AM, paul womack wrote: > paul womack wrote: > >> Question - what's the best/clearest way to represent >> a grandhild relationship in gramps, lacking the intermediate >> parents, just to keep track of things? > Thanks to all for your replies. > > With variations, the answer is "create the intermediate parents". > > I note (from previous list traffic) that some genealogists > object (quite strongly) to creating a "person" where only > a name is known :-) That's great for a paper-based system where you can "leave a gap" in the record and visually see that gap. That doesn't work so well in computer-based systems. -- "Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur" Petronius |
From: Tony P. <to...@pr...> - 2013-10-17 16:01:25
|
This is a topic I was thinking of writing up because it's not uncommon, and I haven't seen any good solutions. Apologies again for presenting my own non-Gramps solution just in case it sounds useful... In my own STEMMA data, I can add someone without having to link them to someone else in my tree. In other words, my 'Person' entities may be disjointed, and do not have to form a tree. This is not only useful in cases like this (where a direct relationship is unknown) but also for people outside of my direct family who may have been very important from an historical point of view, e.g. foster families. In cases like this, I can associate the named grandchild using the Role system in my Event object. So, for instance, if a newspaper report quotes a grandchild of a deceased person passing condolences then I can still record them and indicate the role was something like "Deceased.Grandchild" without having to identify their parents. I can do this since my role system is open and multi-level, e.g. "t:BestMan.Wife" where t:BestMan is a custom role and Wife is a standard role relative to something else (typically "Head.Wife" in a census). ...I hope that rushed suggestion makes sense... Tony Proctor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Johnson" <ron...@co...> To: <gra...@li...> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:45 PM Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Grandchild "for now"? > On 10/17/2013 03:51 AM, paul womack wrote: >> paul womack wrote: >> >>> Question - what's the best/clearest way to represent >>> a grandhild relationship in gramps, lacking the intermediate >>> parents, just to keep track of things? >> Thanks to all for your replies. >> >> With variations, the answer is "create the intermediate parents". >> >> I note (from previous list traffic) that some genealogists >> object (quite strongly) to creating a "person" where only >> a name is known :-) > > That's great for a paper-based system where you can "leave a gap" in the > record and visually see that gap. That doesn't work so well in > computer-based systems. > > -- > "Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur" > Petronius > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > October Webinars: Code for Performance > Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. > Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most > from > the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users |
From: Pat C. <wee...@in...> - 2013-10-17 22:21:50
|
In Gramps, too, it is possible to have unlinked entries in a tree. I have an unlinked "minitree" in my main tree that is waiting for a relationship to turn up which I will then use to bring my "minitree" into the "mainstream". Pat On 10/18/2013 02:31 AM, Tony Proctor wrote: > This is a topic I was thinking of writing up because it's not uncommon, and > I haven't seen any good solutions. Apologies again for presenting my own > non-Gramps solution just in case it sounds useful... > > In my own STEMMA data, I can add someone without having to link them to > someone else in my tree. In other words, my 'Person' entities may be > disjointed, and do not have to form a tree. This is not only useful in cases > like this (where a direct relationship is unknown) but also for people > outside of my direct family who may have been very important from an > historical point of view, e.g. foster families. > > In cases like this, I can associate the named grandchild using the Role > system in my Event object. So, for instance, if a newspaper report quotes a > grandchild of a deceased person passing condolences then I can still record > them and indicate the role was something like "Deceased.Grandchild" without > having to identify their parents. I can do this since my role system is open > and multi-level, e.g. "t:BestMan.Wife" where t:BestMan is a custom role and > Wife is a standard role relative to something else (typically "Head.Wife" in > a census). > > ...I hope that rushed suggestion makes sense... > > Tony Proctor > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ron Johnson"<ron...@co...> > To:<gra...@li...> > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:45 PM > Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Grandchild "for now"? > > >> On 10/17/2013 03:51 AM, paul womack wrote: >>> paul womack wrote: >>> >>>> Question - what's the best/clearest way to represent >>>> a grandhild relationship in gramps, lacking the intermediate >>>> parents, just to keep track of things? >>> Thanks to all for your replies. >>> >>> With variations, the answer is "create the intermediate parents". >>> >>> I note (from previous list traffic) that some genealogists >>> object (quite strongly) to creating a "person" where only >>> a name is known :-) >> That's great for a paper-based system where you can "leave a gap" in the >> record and visually see that gap. That doesn't work so well in >> computer-based systems. >> >> -- >> "Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur" >> Petronius >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> October Webinars: Code for Performance >> Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. >> Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most >> from >> the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register> >> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk >> _______________________________________________ >> Gramps-users mailing list >> Gra...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > October Webinars: Code for Performance > Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. > Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from > the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register> > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users > |
From: paul w. <pw...@pa...> - 2013-10-18 08:08:13
|
Pat Clark wrote: > In Gramps, too, it is possible to have unlinked entries in a tree. > > I have an unlinked "minitree" in my main tree that is waiting for a > relationship to turn up which I will then use to bring my "minitree" > into the "mainstream". Yes - I have lots of unlinked people. I have them because I KEEP turning them up in searches, and I need to eliminate them as "false hits". So I keep them in a database :-) BugBear |
From: Harvey N. <ha...@ni...> - 2013-10-18 08:46:36
|
In fact, this is good practice, I believe. I have adopted the habit of recording godparents present (as witnesses) at a baptism, although there is no solid indication of any biological relationship to my family of interest. More than once, though, two single godparents at one baptism have turned up a the next baptism as a married couple, and one of them is indeed related. Harvey -----Original Message----- From: paul womack <pw...@pa...> To: Pat Clark <wee...@in...>, gra...@li... Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Grandchild "for now"? Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:08:02 +0100 Pat Clark wrote: > In Gramps, too, it is possible to have unlinked entries in a tree. > > I have an unlinked "minitree" in my main tree that is waiting for a > relationship to turn up which I will then use to bring my "minitree" > into the "mainstream". Yes - I have lots of unlinked people. I have them because I KEEP turning them up in searches, and I need to eliminate them as "false hits". So I keep them in a database :-) BugBear ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Gramps-users mailing list Gra...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users |