From: Nick H. <nic...@ho...> - 2013-05-23 18:08:03
|
On 23/05/13 14:47, Enno Borgsteede wrote: > I like the approach, because it causes minimal (no?) changes in our > data model, since we already have key value pairs that can be used for > this, and which can also be used to filter the person view. It also > solves the problem of storing occupations and such, because they can > be stores as extracted events for the extracted persons. And that's > also true for birth years calculated from ages in census and other > records, which can then be stored as extracted birth events. It would be very easy to extend the existing census addons to do this. > > Relating extracted persons to tree persons can largely be covered by > the associations that we also have in the Gramps data model, leaving > not much more than creating a tree view showing conclusion persons > with almost no names and events of their own as being composed of > extracted ones. > I don't understand how this will work. Take a census as an example. The editor creates a census event and a person for each row and flags them as "extracted". It could also create birth and occupation events for each person. How do you suggest that we associate them with a person in the family tree? Using the associations tab won't let you see the extracted events in the conclusion person. You would need to merge the extracted people into the conclusion people. Nick. |