From: <bm...@ca...> - 2007-09-16 08:53:43
|
To put this in perspective, this thread is a consequence of http://bugs.gramps-project.org/view.php?id=3D1219 So there are two date matches: normal match and loose match The normal match will if you search on 1900 not return 01-01-1900, as it do= es not match. Do we need such a filter match? This filter has a big problem with non regu= lar dates, as what is an exact match for a range or a span? This is not defined= at the moment. We would need some sort of definition The loose match adds some logic, and matches 01-01-1900 if you search for 1900. For this filter, there might be a problem with before or after. I see two options: 1/do not allow before and after entries in the filter 2/do literally what the user asks. So 1500 is 'before 1930' I would vote for the 2/, as is said by somebody else, one can refine things with a span or range search, giving the user total control. I would not add the = N logic An easy solution for the normal match would be to do the normal match for regular dates, and use the loose logic match for non-regular dates. Another option is to replace the normal search by a textual search, so to search the text string that is constructed with ISO format. This would be consiste= nt with the other textual searches. Then real date matching searches are alway= s done by the loose search, which after all is an exact search if one enters = the exact date (eg between 12-12-2001 and 14-12-2001). Benny Quoting St=E9phane Charette <ste...@gm...>: > I personally like the idea of adding a bit of extra smarts. > > The trick, however, will be to define "N" -- or maybe to come up with > a different way to do this? But using your same example: > > Filter <whatever> for dates between 1510 and 1520. > > It is easy to say that a record described as "before 1960" shouldn't matc= h. > > What about "before 1760"? Or "before 1560"? > > Should "before 1530" match a search criteria of "between 1510 and 1520"? > > St=E9phane > > > On 9/15/07, Douglas S. Blank <db...@cs...> wrote: >> It is clear that GRAMPS has implemented a straightforward, focused, and >> clean philosophy: basically don't do anything unless the user has >> explicitly told it to do so. Likewise, GRAMPS makes few assumptions, and >> where it does, they are almost always useful and easily undo-able (for >> example, guessing gender based on given name). >> >> I'm working on cleaning up a couple of places in the code, and need some >> feedback. The choices are basically: >> >> - assume nothing, but GRAMPS won't be as useful as it could be >> - make some assumptions, and make GRAMPS more useful >> >> For example, I'm working on date comparisons. Say person A was born >> "before 1960". Now, you want to do a PersonView Sidebar filter on people >> born "before 1959". It seems clear that we surely want to have person A >> come up as a match. But it isn't clear exactly how to handle this in >> general. There seems to be two realistic choices: >> >> 1. "before 1960" means any date < 1960 >> 2. "before 1960" means (1960 - N) < any date < 1960 >> >> If you go with choice 1, then we are being very literal with no >> assumptions. But it would mean that person A would also match a filter >> looking for people born "before 1500" which is silly. Person A would als= o >> match "between 1510 and 1520". Some of you might say "don't have dates >> like 'before 1960'" but of course we do. >> >> If you go with choice 2, then we make an assumption: when you say "befor= e >> 1960" you really mean within N number of years. But what is N? Will this >> be too confusing for users if we have this assumption? >> >> A similar difficulty arises with "about 1960". Surely we want to make so= me >> kind of assumption about that? If you were searching for people born in >> "1959" you would want them to match, right? >> >> It seems like we have to make some assumptions. We could distill them do= wn >> to just a few (like we have in probably_alive---people are assumed to li= ve >> for no more than about 100 years) and even make those user definable. Do= es >> that sound like the best option? >> >> -Doug > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-devel mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |