Re: Genealogical evidence and data model

Haines Brown wrote:
> 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?
>

My issue is between evidence-based structures and interpretation-based 
structures.

> 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.

An interesting thought!

Imagine, if you can, that you have been wrongly accused of a serious 
crime.  Now, is the truth of your innocence a social phenomenon or an 
absolute?

This sort of thinking is, or should be, part of the approach on anyone 
investigating the past.  The truth of the situation may not be knowable 
to the investigator but it is (or was if the past is sufficiently 
distant) knowable to those involved.  It's our attempts to grasp it 
which are the 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 think your "social construction of truth" is my "interpretation".

> 
> 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.
> 

How would you handle this situation:  Two men, Andy and Bob with the 
surname each have a son called Charlie in the same year.  Subsequently a 
man called Charlie with the same surname and who can be shown to have 
been born in that year marries and has a child called David.  The sons 
of Andy and Bob are the only two candidates for David's father but with 
no good grounds to distinguish between them.  How do you then show 
David's ancestry?  Do you choose to link him back to Andy with a note 
that Bob might actually be the grandfather (or the converse)?  If so 
then you may have *noted* the ambiguity but you have not *recorded* it 
in your structure.

-- 
Ian

Hotmail is for spammers.  Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk