From: Don A. <don...@co...> - 2004-02-14 23:18:55
|
One of the problems with "events" deals with backwards compatibility with other programs. The GEDCOM model is kind of awkward - most things are treated as "events". GRAMPS introduced "Attributes" to try to handle things that aren't really an event. The concept I've been trying to follow is that an event has a time frame associated with it, while an attribute doesn't. For example, your ethnicity does not have a time frame associated with it, so it would be an attribute. Religion, on the other hand, does have a time frame. You can be a Roman Catholic from birth to age 20, and a Protestant from age 20 to 40, and a Muslim from age 40 to 60. Similarly, you can own property for a period of time and live at a particular location for a period of time. But something like the U.S Social Security Number doesn't really have a time frame - its more of a property or an attribute. Hopefully this makes sense. Don On Sat, 2004-02-14 at 11:42, D.J...@hw... wrote: > To be honest I find some of the event categories a bit confusing. Is the > "Cause of Death" an event? It could be shared of course (family members in > the same accident or disaster). How about "Property": an event? it could be > shared. "Residence", "Religion"? > > What was intended by some of these categories? Some of them seem more like > attributes to me. > > > If this exhausts the shared event types, should we bother about making > > events shareable, or would we be better off by thinking up a nice mechanism > > of copying/updating events for 5-10 people? > > I'd suggest that the definition of an event be made clearer (assuming it's not > just me missing the point :) and that a means of copying/updating be created, > rather than making them shared. > > Dave |