From: Benny M. <ben...@gm...> - 2012-01-29 10:39:01
|
Some more info. First, something like this defenitely is not possible before a next release. Secondly, the reason I'm against is because we need to be able to clearly explain how one should store genealogy information. That reasoning should be logical, so that we can actually put it as rules in software. The current logic is: You have people, events, ... . The case for these you build up from sources. You attach sources to them. The data of the source can be put in notes, and you can share the notes directly in the people, events, ... Otherwise, you can use notes to write down snippets of information. If you want to make a collection of deductions, you should however create a source, and add your reasoning as notes. What Gramps is missing is a fast way to find the note of a source that is relevant to the object you are viewing. Note sharing is used by some people for that. Me I start a note with an identifier that can be used for the citation. The moment we allow sources attached to a note, we introduce two different ways to do something, which will just make it more difficult to maintain the code and move forward. The probablity of duplicate notes becomes high, and the cyclic loops that Jerome talks about will be something users actually want to do, but which we can't handle in a logical way in software. So I see also big maintenance and logical problems with this idea. Benny 2012/1/29 Benny Malengier <ben...@gm...>: > Yes, I would mind. > > I don't think the interactions between our objects should become spaghetti. > > Per definition, a gramps not has no sources. If a not has a source, > then it should be attached to a source, not the other way around. > > It is also not because GEDCOM does something, that it is a good thing. > > Benny > > 2012/1/29 Tim Lyons <guy...@gm...>: >> Would anyone mind if I implemented source citations on notes in order >> to improve compatibility with GEDCOM. >> >> I suggest doing it in trunk now because: >> >> (1) The database is being updated anyway for citations, so it would be >> more convenient to do the two updates at once. >> (2) Having done the citations update I am already familiar with the >> parts that need changing. >> (3) The change is small and simple, because it only involves adding an >> already existing secondary object to notes. >> (4) There is little extra maintenance effort because of the benefits >> of inheritance in Python in Gramps. >> (5) GEDCOM import and export code is now clean and clear, so I expect >> the changes to be quite simple. >> (6) Improved GEDCOM import compatibility is an important selling point >> for any genealogy program as it helps people who are changing programs. >> >> (7) As a one week special I would do it so as to upgrade existing >> version 16 databases as well (this would be removed later) >> >> Regards, >> Tim. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Try before you buy = See our experts in action! >> The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers >> is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, >> Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2 >> _______________________________________________ >> Gramps-devel mailing list >> Gra...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel |