Re: [Gramps-users] Connecting family trees

[Benny M. <ben...@gm...>]

2012/9/18 Ron Johnson <ron...@co...>

> On 09/18/2012 08:07 AM, Benny Malengier wrote:
> > 2012/9/18 Ron Johnson <ron...@co...>
> [snip]
> >
> >>
> >> (2) Deleting a filter doesn't seem possible.
> >>
> >
> > It is, this is in the filter editor, which you obtain from the Edit menu.
>
> How?  There's no "Delete" icon and when I remove all rules and the filter's
> name, the OK button greys out.
>

On person listview Edit menu-> Person Filter Editor
Then, select a filter, and click the icon with the red cross.


> > (3) Big problem is the meaning of "Related To".  See the recent
> >> "Inconsistent relationship computation?" thread.  How do I filter
> "everyone
> >> on my father's side, including spouses and spouses' relatives plus
> >> step-families, half-families (plus their whole trees) even when the
> half-
> >> relationships happened in the past"?  IOW, everyone remotely related to
> A,
> >> but not A's spouse.
> >>
> >> (4) Related to the previous point is that there needs to be a "plus
> spouses
> >> and their families" qualifier.
> >>
> >
> > If you have a filter A, and now want these people and their spouses, you
> > create a filter B with rule: Family->Spouses of <filter> and rule
> > Family->Siblings of <filter> and rule Family->children of <filter>
> > So you can refine and define this on several levels, only spouses, only
> > children, only siblings, only parents, or a combination thereof.
> >
>
> So every time I add a new "spousal branch" I must add another filter, and
> integrate it into other filters?
>
> Blech.  That's a *complete* non-starter!
>

Not really, if you edit via the sidebar the first filter, you only need to
edit the field that sets filter A.

>
> > There are just too many options possible to create a simple filter
> system.
> > I don't see how it could be made simpler
> >
> >
> >> (5) A "NOT" qualifier for each rule.
> >>
> >
> > The filter system is very versatile. The not is on filter level (see
> > checkbox at bottom of Define Filter editor), not rule level. So you need
> to
> > make a filter for the rule you want to have not, then combine that filter
> > with another filter that contains the other rules.
> >
> > Yes, you end up with a huge amount of filters. Human relationships are
> > complicated though :-)
> >
>
> You'll keep on getting request for linked databases until it's possible to
> write this filter:
>
> EVERYONE RELATED BY BLOOD OR MARRIAGE TO <Person-A>'S PARENT <Person-B> BUT
> NOT RELATED TO <Person-A>'S PARENTS <Person-C>, <Person-D>, ...
>

I believe the related filter is for this, as it scans parents, children and
siblings, however, it also moves along spouses. As a consequence, people
related to your person B would also be related to person-C and D.
In other words, the difficulty is in determining which relations to follow
when doing this. Different people want different things, so we have a
filter for children, one for parents, one for spouses...
If we would make our own meta filter to combine it, it would need a load of
options so as to make everybody happy (include also non-birth children, but
not spouse, ...).

Note that filters are stored in an xml format, so if somebody makes a good
filter, it can be shared among users. I think somebody posted a filter some
time ago to the list to filter out people for an export.


> This has to be possible, because in relationship graphs there's an obvious
> division between my side of the family and my wife's.  It's just a case of
> where to stop traversing the database's internal graph centered on
> <Person-A>.
>

Indeed, but there can be (and often are) several connections that need to
be severed. A human would somehow have to indicate which not to follow, so
the filter can no longer be general. One could try to make a filter
'related to' with an option 'Don't follow partner', so as to loop only over
parents and children, but as soon as there is another connection in the
tree, it will not perform as wanted.

Benny

>
> --
> If adults of legally sound mind must be told what foods they
> are not allowed to buy, then those people are not competent
> to choose (i.e. vote for) their own leaders.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list
> Gra...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>