Robert wrote
>seems far too aimed at conclusions rather than evidence
The Master Genealogist is exactly that - aims at evidence storage -
Version
7 has just been released.
See www.whollygenes.com
Bryan Wetton
-----Original Message-----
From: gencmp-bounces@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:gencmp-bounces@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of gencmp-request@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Friday, 1 February 2008 9:20 AM
To: gencmp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GENCMP Digest, Vol 3, Issue 23
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Genealogical evidence and data model (Tony Proctor)
2. Re: GedLink cannot install - Any link to .GED editors?
(leonardodiserpierodavinci@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
3. Re: GedLink cannot install - Any link to .GED editors? (Bob Jones)
4. Re: GedLink cannot install - Any link to .GED editors?
(Dennis Lee Bieber)
5. Re: Genealogical evidence and data model (Haines Brown)
6. Re: Genealogical evidence and data model (Ian Goddard)
7. Re: Genealogical evidence and data model (Haines Brown)
8. Re: GedLink cannot install - Any link to .GED editors? (singhals)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:56:57 -0000
From: "Tony Proctor" <tony_proctor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Genealogical evidence and data model
To: gencmp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<fns619$p26$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> you don't need anything so hi-falautin' as a data-model
....which is basically my point Cheryl. You do need the data model for the
formalised data, and that model must be flexible enough to cover the
semantic & syntactic issues with variant dates, names, places, etc. All I
was saying is that this kind of audit trail of how you came about the
formalised data can be simply attached to each item as a free-form
meta-data
tag. It would seem to be a case of knowing when best to formalise data and
when best to leave it free-form
Tony Proctor
"singhals" <singhals@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:tM6dnc77o_CMRj3anZ2dnUVZ_oKhnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> If that's all you're wanting to do, you don't need anything so
> hi-falautin' as a data-model. You need a simple lab notebook used as
> a log. Your .RTF file is perfectly good, up to a point, and that
> point is where/when/if you have to PROVE you didn't go back and tweak
> the data in it to make it fit.
>
> Cheryl
>
> Tony Proctor wrote:
>
> > I did some work in this area Cheryl but I elected to keep a simple
rich-text
> > description of the blow-by-blow gathering of evidence, e.g. where it
came
> > from, how, snippets of conversations with individuals (copied from
email,
> > IM, etc). It felt like projects such as Gentech might be trying to
> > over-formalise such data. Obviously a lot of data such as linkages,
events,
> > dates, and stuff can be formalised but the record of the 'breadcrumb
trails'
> > you followed to get that data could be as varied in content and
> > format
as
> > any of us could imagine. The provision of a simple "notes" item to
accompany
> > each item of formalised data seemed to be a practical compromise.
> >
> > The use of "rich-text" as opposed to plain text allowed me to embed
links to
> > specific parts of the formalised data, but that's covered in other
threads.
> >
> > Tony Proctor
> >
> > "singhals" <singhals@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > news:9N-dnW2F5OThdRHanZ2dnUVZ_oKhnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >>Robert Grumbine wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Oh well, a new person to the field, with ideas shaped by another,
> >>>to whine some about what's available. Nothing new there. But
> >>>maybe my whining can provide targets (some things I complain about
> >>>might be solved) or, as we continue, some sup****t for doing certain
> >>>things could develop. I could write some suitable software to
> >>>implement certain ideas, if it looked worthwhile.
> >>>
> >>> I've done some back reading as I get into the subject, including
> >>>the gedcom/xml arguments, and am not really trying to go back to
> >>>those.
> >>>
> >>> 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).
> >>>
> >>> But that is only the proverbial tip of the ice berg. Because
> >>>that 22.2 C observation (with rest of sup****t) is almost certainly
> >>>not exactly the number we're going to use for analyzing the air-sea
> >>>heat flux, or sea surface temperature, or whatever it is we're
> >>>doing. The thing is, each observing method has biases. We know
> >>>this, so adjust for them as relevant to our problem at hand. The
> >>>problem that we _could_ run in to is that the 22.2 we now see is
> >>>not the actual original observation. Someone could already have
> >>>made the adjustment for intake temperature bias. How we avoid this
> >>>is that the data (are supposed to be) are given histories. The
> >>>original observation (and its metadata) are augmented by a new
> >>>value and _its_ metadata (22.4 C after George applied John Doe's
> >>>intake temperature bias correction, say), and this additional
> >>>information then follows along. I could decide that John Doe's
> >>>correction method is not the best, and instead apply, myself, Mary
> >>>Roe's -- to the original 22.2, now that I know the 22.4 was after
> >>>somebody else applied a correction I don't like to arrive at it.
> >>>Not clear to me yet (I've been doing some light reading of the data
> >>>model do***ent, but not carefully nor complete) whether the GENTECH
> >>>sup****ts this sort of consideration.
> >>>
> >>> A different problem is that the typical software treatment seems
> >>>to be that it has little or no ability to track exactly what the
> >>>evidence and sources are. For instance, it seems that if I im****t
> >>>a file from someone and they cite a census record, I have my choice
> >>>of ignoring that _my_ source was Jane Genealogist, not the orignal
> >>>record, and preserve the census citation, or I can _add_ Jane as a
> >>>source. Now this is a problem, in my mind. When I look later, it
> >>>will show two sources -- the census, and Jane. But my real state
> >>>of knowledge is only that Jane _said_ the census had some
> >>>information. This isn't two independant sources, it's 1 source, 1
> >>>step removed from the primary do***ent. (Please, no jumping on
> >>>that usage, I realize that there's a trade meaning to the term
> >>>'primary do***ent', and census isn't an example.) What I want the
> >>>software to do is, when I im****t a file that has citations, mark
> >>>that my source is Jane, and her sources were ... whatever she said.
> >>>If I'm making a 20th generation copy/im****t (of a copy of a copy
> >>>...), then the software should show the prior 19 im****ters as well
> >>>as the original person who looked at a do***ent. GENTECH seems to
> >>>sup****t this concern of mine, but with no implementation thereof,
> >>>I'm still sol.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>First off -- PAF, Legacy, Reunion are all lineage-linked databases.
> >>You'll probably be slightly happier with one of the EVENT-linked
> >>databases; I know there are at least two, I remember only one name
> >>(The Master Genealogist).
> >>
> >>Second, when those older programs were being written, a permanent
> >>way to record conclusions is what was wanted. NO ONE wanted to have
> >>to keep handwriting copies for the family if the computer would
> >>print it out for you. TMG came along later, when computer genealogy
> >>wasn't quite as insular as it had been. But, I'd venture to suggest
> >>that out of any 100 genealogists at least 51% _still_ want a program
> >>to record their conclusions so they can print it out. This doesn't
> >>mean that 49% is insignificant, it just means it's the minority.
> >>
> >>Now.
> >>
> >>I like the concept (I can hear people falling over in
> >>droves) of tracking who-said-what-and-when-did-he-say-it.
> >>However, let's bring a touch of realism in ... I'll even play fair
> >>and use one of my smaller databases as the example.
> >>
> >>Database L has 2000 names; each name has one source per datapoint
> >>(i.e., a source for the name, for the parent relation****p, for the
> >>bd, for the bp, for the spouse, for the md, for the mp, for the dd,
> >>for the dp), which is 10
> >>sources per name, potentially 20,000 source entries. By
> >>the time that data is re-tagged with each of 20 iterations, it is
> >>going to be unmanageable. The more sup****ting do***entation (i.e.,
> >>complete extracts of books, images of do***ents, etc etc) you
> >>include, the faster it will become unmanageable.
> >>
> >>I tried doing it manually for one project, but it palled very
> >>quickly.
> >>
> >>I still like the idea of knowing where you got it, but I'm
> >>unconvinced it is worth the programmer's effort or the user's effort
> >>of maintaining the chain-of-evidence.
> >>
> >>Cheryl
> >
> >
> >
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:02:34 -0800 (PST)
From: "leonardodiserpierodavinci@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
<leonardodiserpierodavinci@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: GedLink cannot install - Any link to .GED editors?
To: gencmp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Jan 22, 5:23 pm, Charlie Hoffpauir <inva...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> PAF and Legacy are the two that come immediately to mind. I've
> downloaded and tried both (didn't really like either one very much,
> but that's a personal choice, many people do like them and use them)
>
> Legacy fromhttp://www.legacyfamilytree.com/Download.asp
> PAF fromhttp://www.familysearch.org/
>
> I'm really surprised to hear that you found 3 genealogy programs that
> would NOT im****t GED files. I've tried many programs, and every one I
> tried easily im****ted GEDCOMs.
I tried Legacy Family Tree and it seems OK. It comes with a Stardard
edition
which is free. I installed PAF a few weeks ago and as far as I remember it
did not have the option to im****t GED files. Thanks for the links.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:35:06 GMT
From: "Bob Jones" <rjo25512@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: GedLink cannot install - Any link to .GED editors?
To: gencmp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<uvhoj.9400$421.8059@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<much snipped>
> I installed PAF a few weeks ago and as far as I remember it did not
> have the option to im****t GED files. Thanks for the links.
PAF can im****t geds - do "File" then "Im****t" then pick GED to im****t.
--
Bob JONES
Where does your lap go when you stand up?
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:03:23 -0800
From: Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: GedLink cannot install - Any link to .GED editors?
To: gencmp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<13q3anrrllfjuf7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:02:34 -0800 (PST),
"leonardodiserpierodavinci@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
<leonardodiserpierodavinci@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> declaimed the following in
soc.genealogy.computing:
> I installed PAF a few weeks ago and as far as I remember it did not
> have the option to im****t GED files.
> Thanks for the links.
Really?
PAF is, as I recall, produced by the people who, theoretically,
/define/ what is a GEDCOM file... It would seem rather odd that it
wouldn't im****t their own data transfer file...
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG
wlfraed@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Bestiaria Sup****t Staff: web-asst@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
HTTP://www.bestiaria.com/
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:11:12 -0500
From: Haines Brown <brownh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Genealogical evidence and data model
To: gencmp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<877ihqxkin.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:03:38 +0000
From: Ian Goddard <goddai01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Genealogical evidence and data model
To: gencmp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<NYidncutBenHbDzanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
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
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:41:20 GMT
From: Haines Brown <brownh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Genealogical evidence and data model
To: gencmp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<87bq71u3o3.fsf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Ian Goddard <goddai01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> 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?
A crime is socially defined (Robinson Crusoe could not commit a crime),
but the act is individual. Hence we are back to the notion that
individual and society are aspects of one process (this is
conventionally called "social being").
Anyway...
> 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.
I respond, not to answer your question, but to get a better
understanding of the issue. This David would have a GEDCOM entry like
this:
n @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FAM
For example,
0 @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FAM
So couldn't Charles I (son of Andy) possibly be F4, while Charles II
(son of Bob) is F5? So a David with "0 @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FAM" would umambiguously be
the son of Charles I. What am I misunderstanding?
--
Haines Brown, KB1GRM
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:49:03 -0500
From: singhals <singhals@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: GedLink cannot install - Any link to .GED editors?
To: gencmp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<5Z-dnTjsPpv9zT_anZ2dnUVZ_saknZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:03:23 -0800, Dennis Lee Bieber
> <wlfraed@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:02:34 -0800 (PST),
>>"leonardodiserpierodavinci@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
>><leonardodiserpierodavinci@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> declaimed the following in
>>soc.genealogy.computing:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I installed PAF a few weeks ago and as far as I remember it did not
>>>have the option to im****t GED files.
>>>Thanks for the links.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> PAF is, as I recall, produced by the people who, theoretically,
>>/define/ what is a GEDCOM file... It would seem rather odd that it
>>wouldn't im****t their own data transfer file...
>
>
> Apparently Leonardo is commenting without really learning how to use
> the programs that he has downloaded. I'm still waiting for the names
> of the 3 programs he downloaded that will not im****t GEDCOM files.
>
> I must have tried about 20 different programs over the last 20 years,
> and I really didn't find a single one that wouldn't read the basic
> data from a GEDCOM. Not all did a decent job of it, but I was able to
> get names, and bmd dates.
>
The Family Edge /DOS (TFE) in its freeware version did not
do GED. In fact, IRRC, even the paid version required a
utility to do GED.
A freebie that didn't do GED was something called
"Genealogy" -- OTOH, maybe what it didn't do was work on any
of my boxes rather than not doing GED, since I never got to
the point where I could even do dataentry with it.
Eucalyptus a shareware out of Oz didn't do GED either.
OTOH, all those programs have been defunct for more than 8
years, and I didn't even know you could still d/l 'em.
Cheryl
End of GENCMP Digest, Vol 3, Issue 23
*************************************
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.18/1254 - Release Date:
1/31/2008
8:30 PM
|
