Ian Goddard wrote:
> Everett M. Greene wrote:
>
>> JD <jd4x4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>verizon.net> writes:
>>
>>> Ian Goddard <goddai01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> In practice it seems that the GEDCOM type of model has influenced
>>>> genealogical S/W to the extent that there doesn't
>>>> seem to be any real advance on it.
>>>
>>> Again, one of the problems coming out of GEDCOM is that the DATA is
>>> getting mixed with the model. The data is and will always be what it
is,
>>> right? The differences are in how we each use it and think of it, imo.
>>
>>
>> All this discussion is interesting (and we hope useful), but
>> could there be some elaboration on the above points? It would
>> seem that genealogical info describes a network of parents
>> to/from children with nets spliced/joined by marriages. How
>> does one "improve" on this "model"?
>
>
> I think the knowledge that we all have a network of parents tracing us
> back to Pooh-Bah's "protoplasmic globule" has proved to be too much of a
> temptation for many S/W authors. It's a nice tempting structure on
> which to base a program. The trouble is that although we know that the
> structure exists we don't actually *know* who occupied its nodes.
>
> Half a working life spent investigating the past has left me acutely
> aware that what happened in the past, the evidence it left behind and my
> interpretation of it are three different things - and your
> interpretation would be a fourth.
>
> The past is gone. We can't go there. The best we can do is look for
> the evidence, analyse it and interpret it. In any form of investigation
> keeping evidence and interpretation distinct is essential and this,
> ISTM, is what most, if not all genealogical S/W fails to do.
>
> If we find that John, son of William Smith was baptised in 1692 this
> gives us a couple of names and roles. There are very few ways in which
> S/W handles this.
>
> One way, the individual-centred, is to invite us to edit the records for
> John and William if they exist and add the event and date or to create a
> new record for either if it doesn't exist. But the decision as to
> whether the individuals in this newly discovered event are the same as
> those already in the database is interpretation. So whether we choose
> to enter or edit we are leaping straight to interpretation and
> relegating the evidence to a footnote.
>
> Another way, event-centred, is to allow us to add the event and create
> new individual records for John and William. This gives us what appears
> to be a nicely structured representation of the evidence, a record of
> the event and records of the names and roles of its participants. We
> can move to interpretation in our own time, deferring for as long as we
> wish, the question of whether, for instance this John is the same John
> as the one who married in 1714 and was the father of Mary Smith baptised
> in 1715. If, however, we decide that the infant and the bridegroom were
> indeed one and the same the only option available is to merge the two
> records. What appeared initially to be a record which was part of the
> evidence structure has suddenly been treated as part of the
> interpretation. If we were to decide that we shouldn't have merged them
> we will have to hand-craft another record to replace the one that was
> discarded during the merge and patch up the links.
>
> What we need is an evidence-centred approach which will allow us to
> enter the event and the name/role records as part of the evidence and
> retain them as permanent records. We would have a different record
> which would represent our historical reconstruction (interpretation) of
> John Smith. We would then link both our evidential records of John to
> this. If we change our mind about the interpretation all we need to do
> is delete the link we don't want. Alternatively we might have a link
> which carries enough information to record that we're not sure whether
> the identification is correct. We could even link an evidential record
> to more than one reconstruction until we make up our minds. In data
> modeling terms the evidential and interpretational records are different
> kinds of entity even if they're both characterised by a name. This, to
> my mind, is the minimum model needed to underpin good investigative
> practice. Personally I'd want to make the link which represents the
> identification between evidence and interpretation into an entity in its
> own right, I'd want to make sources into a hierarchy capable of
> representing such structure as archives, collections and do***ents
> (Gramps is a good example of this) and I'd want each record to have a
> globally unique identifier (see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globally_Unique_Identifier)
to facilitate
> information sharing.
>
> This produces a more complex model than that which underlies GEDCOM. We
> could use GEDCOM to represent the evidential view or the
> interpretational view but we can't use it do both at the same
> time nor can it tell us which view it's representing.
>
Could some of the problems be cured _IF_ the genie program
were used to record ONLY conclusions? Back in the
long-long-ago, before we had computer genealogy programs, we
had working forms and final forms; the final form was
prettily written in ink on quality paper and represented our
conclusions. The working forms were scribbled in pencil on
something approaching newsprint, stapled together by name,
one form per source. When we REACHED a conclusion, we
annotated the final one, on the back, with remarks like "The
family of the same names in South Fork is a different
family" or "There is a family in North Branch which is very
similar to this family."
I find it inefficient to constantly have to re-evaluate my
data. Often clue which didn't make it to the Xerox copy or
the digital image contributed to a thought which led me to
another source where I found what I considered conclusive
evidence. I don't always remember why I went to look in
East Widget records when the family before and after was in
South Som'ers...without remembering why, I can easily reach
a different conclusion.
Remember, no fact cannot be misinterpreted in at least three
different ways, and most evidence can also be interpreted
many ways. Ask any Defense attorney.
Cheryl
|
