Re: Genealogical evidence and data model

Haines Brown wrote:
> 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

What happened happened.  What is is.  We might agree (since this is 
Usenet, more likely we'll disagree) on what words to use to describe it, 
but changing those words will NOT change what happened or what is.

And we might agree or disagree on whether it happened, but if we 
disagree, at least one of us will be wrong.

> 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?

First, 0 @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 FAM is the first line of a record about a family,
not about a person.

Now as to what I _think_ you meant.  The question concerned how you
would unambiguously show that you can NOT unambiguously tell who he
is the son of, in the computer-parseable structure as opposed to
a human-readable NOTE.

-- 
Wes Groleau

http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/
For lovers of language and learning