From: Martin S. <mar...@ma...> - 2011-07-27 16:11:31
|
Hi Jim, While looking for something else, I came across the following remarks by Tom Wetmore, which reminded me of your questions here. Perhaps you'll find them interesting, although not specifically about Gramps. Source: <http://bettergedcom.wikispaces.com/message/view/BetterGEDCOM+Comparisons/32431138?o=20#32468490> --> begin quote re: Question re Relationship and Fact/Event/Date/Location/Tag qualifiers/coments (from non-tech) ttwetmore Jan 12, 2011 5:47 am [...] EXACTLY, EXACTLY, EXACTLY!! And whenever I am editing one of my GEDCOM records, trying to correctly add new information to a CONCLUSION person, I find myself demoting and duplicating SOUR lines all over the place. This is one of the very PAINFUL REALITIES of only having conclusion records in your database. The different facts and events come from so many places, that if you want to structure you conclusion objects to hold what you believe is the truth (or is at least is in the best form you think you can show), these crazy "trees of sources" that require constant maintenance come along with your pains. This is one of the main reasons why I am trying to get to a place where my database has EVIDENCE persons that only have ONE LEVEL 1 SOURCE line because everything in individual record come from the same source, and then CONCLUSION persons that point to evidence persons. The facts and events in the CONCLUSION persons can then have sources that represent your own conclusions from the evidence. And since the conclusion person always points to all the evidence persons it is derived from, you never loose the original sources. Here is a debate I have with myself all the time when I am editing my records. If I find a new birth event for an ancestor, say slightly different than any version I've found before, do I add it as a new birth event to the CONCLUSION person, giving him/her another BIRT event; or do I take the DATE and PLAC information and add it to a single BIRT event. Here's example. Say my database starts with a person with this birth event: 1 BIRT 2 DATE 18 DEC 1896 2 PLAC Norwich, Connecticut 2 SOUR @S1@ <<-- points to the social security database But then I get the WWI draft registration for this person, and it has a different birth date and less detail on the place. I could just add this (before or after the above event): 1 BIRT 2 DATE 19 December 1896 2 PLAC Connecticut 2 SOUR @S2@ <<-- points to the WWI draft record So, what would you do? I have two approaches. Sometimes I add this second event as is and then a THIRD event that shows what I believe -- that is, I put a little of the EVIDENCE & CONCLUSION PROCESS right in the record. So here is the third record I put in: 1 BIRT 2 DATE 19 DEC 1896 3 SOUR @S2@ <<-- gotta believe this one because he wrote it in his own hand 2 PLAC Norwich, Connecticut 3 SOUR @S1@ <<-- going with Norwich because this has more detail than found in the WWI card. 2 SOUR This is my conclusion based on examining the source records and choosing what I believe to be the best information. And I make this the first event structure in the record. And remember, the other two events remain in the record. But sometimes I get frustrated with all the "extra" events that start filling up my records, so some times I would reduce it down to just one record that looks like this: 1 BIRT 2 DATE 19 December 1896 <<-- shown first because it's the one I believe to be true 3 SOUR @S2@ <<-- demoted: points to the WWI draft record 2 DATE 18 DEC 1896 <<-- shown second because it's the one I don't believe to be true 3 SOUR @S1@ <<-- demoted: points to the social security database 2 PLAC Norwich, Connecticut <<-- shown first because it has more information 3 SOUR @S1@ <<-- demoted: points to the social security database 2 PLAC Connecticut <<-- shown second because it has less information 3 SOUR @S2@ <<-- demoted: points to the WWI draft record 2 SOUR The arrangements in this event show my preferences, with the first mentions being what I believe the better statement of the facts. So now I have ONE BIRT event with multiple DATE and PLAC lines with the implied rule that the one comes first is the one to use in displays and preferences, and you gotta hope your program understands this convention (see funny story below). So, Adrian, this problem we ALL have, whether we know it or not. I'm not sure what the best way to solve it is (I have many records in my database using these different approaches and they are all pretty ugly, but true honesty requires they be ugly GIVEN THAT WE DON'T PROPERLY SUPPORT THE EVIDENCE AND CONCLUSION PROCESS). --> end quote |