Re: [Gramps-devel] GEPS-18 -- Sort Title (was database changes)

[John R. <jr...@ce...>]

On Jun 18, 2013, at 12:32 PM, Benny Malengier <ben...@gm...> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 2013/6/18 John Ralls <jr...@ce...>
> 
> On Jun 18, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Benny Malengier <ben...@gm...> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 2013/6/18 Tim Lyons <guy...@gm...>
>> 
>> >
>> > 1/ Source.title -> Source.sort_title.
>> > Sort title will be a non editable field, automatically stored based on the
>> > template and the attributes. We need it mainly for fast listview creation.
>> > We could remove it entirely, but then we need to do a template loading ->
>> > title construction from template, for every line in the source list view,
>> > which I think we better do not do for performance.
>> 
>> I don't think it is necessary to change the name of the field in the code.
>> There is little chance of confusion in the code between Source.title and
>> SrcAttributeType.SRCTEMPLATE.TITLE (not that the SrcAttributeType is
>> accessed in quite that way).
>> 
>> The names in the UI are a different matter - for the header of the listview
>> column, something will be needed to distinguish it from the attribute.
>> Perhaps something like "Combined Title" or "Consolidated Title" or "derived
>> Title", or something similar.
>> 
> 
> This needs to be editable. Consider trying to find the right entry in the Source
> list when one has 50 entries named "Birth Certificate".
> 
> Are you sure? 
> Or you use Church Record book, and that is the unique source, with birth certificates of people as sources indicated by date/page/id
> Or you make a source for every birth certificate (not what you are supposed to do, but understandable), in which case the title would probably contain the person born, or the website with the certificate, .... All things that make it unique when generated automatically. 
> 
> I don't mind keeping the title editable, it's at the moment programmed like that. Your reasoning for allowing it doesn't hold though in my opinion.

That might be because in Belgium all of the birth records are kept in church record books, and that would indeed 
be the source. In the UK BMD records have been centrally reported since 1837, and the Public Records Office 
department of The National Archives issues facsimile certificates made from those record books. For the most part 
that's as close as one can get to the original record, and that's what one would cite. Most US states have issued separate
 certificates (or licenses, in the case of marriages) at least since the early 20th century; some have done for longer.Again, 
the original record is in certificate form, not as record book entries, so certificates is what must be cited.

Anyway, that was just an example. If your ancestor's families are mobile, which is far more common in America than in 
Europe, it's not unusual to have a large number of  record books in one's source list. I think it unlikely that you 
can write a sufficiently capable algorithm to compress intelligibly the titles into something that makes sense to display in
a list, so let's permit the user to do so.

Regards,
John Ralls