In article <aotpo35ev0q7o4senol8e17hu2eorp25mm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Denis Beauregard <denis.b-at-francogene.com@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Le Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:42:20 -0000, bobg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Robert Grumbine)
>écrivait dans soc.genealogy.computing:
>
>> One interesting thing to me was the mention of the GENTECH
>>Genealogical Data Model. The sad news there being that, apparently,
>>nobody actually implements it. Or anything particularly close.
>>
>> I come to the computing/data from a science field (oceanography)
>>and one of the things which has promptly bothered me is that the
>>software available (paf, legacy, reunion) seems far too aimed
>>at conclusions rather than evidence, and even more poorly aimed
>>at representing source information trails.
>>
>> The evidence trail is something particularly bothersome
>>to me. From my field, let's say our original observation is that it
>>was 22.2 C. Now, if that was all we had, we'd be ticked, because it
>>doesn't tell us when the observation was taken, where it was, or
>>how it was taken. All these metadata are im****tant, and usually you can
>>get them (with sufficient patience and phone calls, rather like
>>genealogy in that, it seems).
>
>I am currently rewriting a reference database with a lot of people,
>so I receive feedback from users but also I explore a lot of books,
>articles, databases, etc. to complete my data when vital records are
>not enough complete.
>
>When someone proposes a new link that is "logically" deduced, I
>suggest to publish an article in a relevent review so that I will
>put a reference to that article in my database instead of
>summarizing the path of evidences. An example:
>
>There is a Hubert family of unknown origin. A descendant found in
>one notary record a note about a daughter describing an uncle, making
>the link IF there is only one person by that name. The link is
>made more solid because of the migration path of this and another
>family from a town to another.
>
>I think it is just impossible to describe this case in a sketchy
>way, and to represent it otherwise than with a lot of notes (or a
>reference to an article). And, you know what, GEDCOM format allows
>notes...
>
>Whatever the format or chart you define to describe your data, you
>will always get something more complex not included in your design.
>This is probably why the GENTECH model can't work.
I don't think I see the problem with GENTECH in that situation.
Easily that I misunderstand one or both.
My take is that the article should indeed be written, collecting
all the messy details and noting the due cautions as to the
strength of the conclusion. That's one of the reasons for scientific
publication too, both to do***ent the mess, and to provide a best
current answer to the question.
Once it's written, can't GENTECH let you cite that paper properly, both
in terms of the source reference and in terms of connecting or
establi****ng
whichever connections or facts are needed? If not, this is a horrific
lapse.
>--
> 0 Denis Beauregard -
> /\/ Les Français d'Amérique du Nord -
>www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
> |\ French in North America before 1722 -
>www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
> / | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1770 (Version 2008)
>oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginnings to 1770 (2008 Release)
One of these days, I'll be visiting your site for more than tourist
purposes. I'm told I have French ancestors, but it appears that they
came pretty far back if so. (Also, one alleged ancestor was alledgely
of French extraction -- and she was revolutionary era and her claimed
parents and grandparents, in the same source that said French extraction,
weren't French.)
In the mean time, it's been nice to visit. Please do keep up
the good work.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/
Science faqs and amateur
activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too
much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than
they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New
Sciences
|
