Re: [Gramps-users] Inconsistent relationship computation?

[Martin S. <mar...@ma...>]

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 09:47:37AM +0200, Benny Malengier wrote:
>2012/9/20 Martin Steer <mar...@ma...>
>
>
>    According to Wikipedia, "In the GEDCOM lineage-linked data model, all
>    data are structured to reflect the believed reality, that is, actual (or
>    hypothesized) nuclear families and individuals." Gramps, at least in its
>    UI, has inherited this attachment to the nuclear family.
>
>    If I were rolling my own, I wouldn't use a family construct at all. I'd
>    do something like:
>
>    parent
>    |
>    v
>    birth event <- child
>    ^
>    |
>    parent
>
>    parent
>    |
>    v
>    adoption event <- child
>    ^
>    |
>    parent
>
>    and leave it at that. The event_type, together with the link,
>    establishes the relationship. Notice that this allows any number or kind
>    of parent, of any sex. Siblings have a parent in common.
>
>    Are we there yet?
>
>
>Yes, many people hate the family construct. It does have it's benefits from a
>technical viewpoint in my view. It simplifies looping trough families to
>discover in an automated way relationships. For example, the fanchart I just
>finished in trunk need not figure out how things work, the family holds the
>information. In your setup, a lot of extra information will have to be provided
>to do a correct reconstruction.

On the other hand, use of the family in Gramps complicates the
interface. In my setup you have individual + event (= relationship).
Gramps has individual + event, individual + relationship, and individual
+ family.

>
>So, for a more general construct, I personally would just allow familygroups to
>be constructed, for those cases that a man has several women or vica versa. But
>again, in my view it would be connected to living together somehow. So the
>Sheik of Saudi-Arabia could have a family group, but not eg Mitterand or the
>King of Belgium.
>
>Benny
>