Re: [Gramps-users] Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as a relationship type?

[John W. K. <Joh...@xs...>]

Enno,

Some final remarks from me in this thread.

On 2017-02-27 21:14, Enno Borgsteede wrote:
> Hello John,
>> On 2017-02-25 16:06, Enno Borgsteede wrote:
>>> Hello John,
>>> 
>>> The simplest answer is that status and type are different things, and 
>>> a
>>> relationship type refers to the sort of relationship that people once
>>> had. Divorce as an event is not a relationship, but rather the end of
>>> it, and divorced is a status, not a type.
>> 
>> It looks like we're more or less stating the same (albeit in different 
>> words) in that events are cause for some individual civil status[1] or 
>> the change thereof, e.g.:
>> 
>> o Birth (event) -> Born (status);
>> o Marriage (event) -> Married (status);
>> o Separation (event) -> Separated (status);
>> o Divorce (event) -> Divorced [from so and so] (status);
>> o Death (event) -> Died or Deceased (status) and related Widow or 
>> Widower [from so and so] (status).
> No we don't. I wrote that status and type are different things. They
> are different in my mind, and in all the software that I work with, or
> maintain.
> 
>> 
>>> When you take the definitions like this, and software is always based 
>>> on
>>> formal definitions, a relation type 'married' as opposed to other 
>>> types,
>>> does not end with a divorce. A divorce creates a new status called
>>> 'divorced' but that does not not mean that the relationship type 
>>> itself
>>> is changed.
>>> 
>>> I set the relationship between my parents and most other couples in 
>>> my
>>> tree to married, because that's what they were. Divorces, 
>>> separations,
>>> or deaths, don't change the relationship types that once were.
>> 
>> No, but events such as divorce and death do, at least IMHO.
> In yours, yes, but not in mine. For me, a type is like the brand or
> model of a car.

With all due respect, it looks like you need to revisit your 
understanding of the meaning of words like status, type, brand and model 
as they relate to the topic of this discussion.

> If I were to register my car history, I can write that
> I once had a Volvo 440. This car was recycled quite a while ago, but
> in my car history, it's still a Volvo.

The analogy between certain terminology, such brand and model, that can 
be used to describe ones car and comparable terminology, such as status 
and type, to describe the past, current or (possible) future status of a 
legal contract of sorts that a marriage is, is IMHO questionable at 
best.

E.g. you state that for you relationship type is comparable to the brand 
or model of a car, but since the brand[1] of a car is something 
different than the model[2] of a car the relationship type can only be 
compared to one, not to both, or to be specific in the case of your 
Volvo 440 the brand is "Volvo" and the model is "440", while one would 
typically expect the use of words such as operational, in mint 
condition, demolished, inoperable, classic, wrecked, towed, impounded, 
or totaled to describe any of the past, present or future statuses of a 
model 440 car of the brand Volvo.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand
[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/model

> When I think of relationships, I see the type of relationship between
> my parents (marriage) as an eternal fact, which means that they were
> married, just like the first car that I owned was a Volvo.

Referring to the above, the status of a relationship is, as is the 
status of a car, by definition subject to change, be it, in the case of 
a car, as the result of normal use or an event such as a traffic 
accident, or, in the case of a relationship, through marriage, 
registered partnership or an event such as death or disappearance (of 
one of the spouses), separation, divorce filing, divorce and what not.

> The
> marriage ended when my father died, in 2004, but the type of
> relationship was a marriage for most of the time, and until the end,
> i.e. my father's death.

The present day (not the past) relationship between two spouses ends 
when one of them dies and it is my understanding that the civil status 
of the remaining spouse changes to widow or widower and as a consequence 
the status of the relationship IMHO ought to change from married to 
widowed.

> And on a similar scale, I see my own
> relationship to my father as an eternal one too.

To state the legal fact that someone is the son or daughter of so and 
so, IMHO conveys no information whatsoever about the relationship 
between the parent and the child in the context of Civil Law, whereas 
words like adopted, stepchild, child, biological child, do.

(significant portion removed)

> 
> regards,
> 
> Enno

Regards, Jk.