Re: Genealogical evidence and data model

A very interesting thread. I hope no one minds if a non-genealogist
jumps in with questions.

My sense of the distinction of a relation-based and an event based
structure is clear to me only in the abstract, but not in concrete
terms. Would someone be willing to offer a simple example of each to
help make the distinction clearer?

As an historian, I'm puzzled by the debate over whether it is necessary
to go beyond presentation to include the source evidence. Without
defending the point, let me offer my impression of the
difference. Presentation and content seem the contradictory aspects of
one process. They are interdependent and equally necessary. Under modern
conditions, we distinguish form and content (CSS markup being a familiar
example) because we distinguish individual and society. It seems to me
that a set of conclusions in themselves (that is, disconnected from the
sup****ting evidence and argumentation) have no truth value because truth
is a social phenomenon. On the other hand, presentation conveys a
socially constructed truth in a form meaningful for the individual,
which is obviously a condition necessary for the social construction of
truth. One without the other makes no sense.

I'm also unclear why people are having so much difficulty handling
ambiguity in their databases. The reason may be that I'm unfamiliar with
the software so far mentioned. I happen to use LifeLines, and if there's
ambiguity, I can readily inject a note in the GEDCOM saying so. I assume
other software can do the same, and so am not clear about the problem.

-- 
 
       Haines Brown, KB1GRM