|
From: Richard T. <ric...@gm...> - 2019-11-05 20:59:56
|
Interesting. On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:59 AM Emy...@ya... <emy...@ya...> wrote: > My wild guess is that the Places enhancement in the next release may have > support aliased IDs for multiple (parallel) geographical data schemes. This > may be necessary for data harmonization compatibility. > > Say that you want to store the compatible IDs for GeoNames, ISO 3166, > & UN/LOCODE sytems while also maintaining Gramps more limited IDs. And > there is no doubt that these systems will evolve and change with time. > (Like the GPS coordinates have changed over time as mapping systems changed > and with plate tectonic based continental drift.) If you have the ability > to store all those IDs (in addition to the Gramps ID), then you will be > able to move seamlessly between systems & take advantage of the disparity > of features. > > Internally, Gramps doesn't care since the IDs shown to Users are just a > lookup handles to the internal pointers. > > That said, the ID in Gramps IS important to Filter rules because they use > the ID rather than the internal pointer handle. But it isn't important for > linked records in your Notes because those invisibly use the handle. Thus > re-numbering IDs will break filter rules but not linked Notes. > > (I recently re-numbered my records because I'd outstripped the leading > zeroes in the ID auto-generator and sorting Persons or Events by ID no > longer approximated the age of the record. That re-numbering appears to > have broken my bookmarks and a few other items that appear to have also > unexpectedly used IDs instead of pointers. Still isolating what was > affected.) > > The use of alias IDs makes sense elsewhere too. Just like I'll want to > store the ID for FamilySearch, Ancestry, WikiTree & FindAGrave alongside of > their Gramps Person ID. A person might have multiple IDs (for unmerged > duplicates) in those systems. Or one system might contain expanded data the > others don't and need to be periodically data-scraped. > > I seem to have wandered off-topic but the point is... re-defining IDs is a > prime example of the laws of unexpected consequences. It isn't a question > of whether there be breakage, but rather, what will be broken. > > -Brian > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 12:57, Richard Troxel > <ric...@gm...> wrote: > Thanks Brian! > I have not shared my database as of this time. The few "draft" reports > that I have distributed (published) do not include any Gramps Id's, so > these are not really considerations. > > If I use the GEO Id's, should I change my Gramps ID Format settings? Does > it hurt to have a mixture of Id's? I have already manually set up a number > of enclosures. Part of me says that it would be less trouble to keep the > Gramps Id's but I don't know if there is an advantage to the GEO Id's. > Does that make sense? > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 10:42 AM Emyoulation--- via Gramps-users < > gra...@li...> wrote: > > For others not familiar with the gramplet: > This option is in the section labeled "Result/Edit view". This view > appears after pressing Find button, showing of 10 rows of results. > > https://www.gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php/Addon:PlaceCleanupGramplet#Result.2FEdit_view > > Using the Original Gramps ID is strategic if you have copies of your tree > out with other people doing edits. (Or perhaps you've published your Tree > with the automatically generated Gramps IDs or Custom IDs.) > > When you compare/merge those Revised trees, having the same ID means a new > item won't be added to your Place tree. It might save you from having to > merge duplicate places with different IDs. > > Likewise, if you import data from other people (or files) already using a > GeoNames standard ID, the databases is less likely to add duplicates if > you're already using the the same standard ID naming. > > -Brian > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 12:16, Richard Troxel > <ric...@gm...> wrote: > I have just discovered this Gramplet and can definitely see its > usefulness. I do have a question about certain options that it presents. > > In the WIKI it says, > *ID* field. This field displays the Gramps ID. It cannot be edited. There > is a small Orig checkbox just above this field, if checked, the Original > ID from the place is used instead of the found ID. Note that this checkbox > is disabled if there is no original ID. > What are the pros and cons of using the GEO Id vs the original Gramps Id? > What do you do? > > -- > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users > https://gramps-project.org > > |