Re: Genealogical evidence and data model

Wes Groleau <groleau+news@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:

> 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.

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

Guess again: I agree! But in search of an example, I find it hard to
find something that Crusoe could do that was criminal (there are no laws
to break; no one else to take offense). So let's have him commit an
abstract hypothetical crime. Well, he did it; what happened,
happened. But what makes that act criminal? Only society. I assume that
all crimes are transgressions against social norms.

>> 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.

But Charles would then be linked to family of Urfather Andy, not to
family of Urfather Bob. I thought the issue was to know whether this
Charles was grandson of Andy or of Bob. 

> 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.

Of course a human-radable NOTE could say, "This Charles is grandson of
Andy". But that fact also strikes me as being machine-readable from the
presence of the F4 link. That is,  the link to n @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   FAM will
take me to the element in FAM, +1 HUSB @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  {0:1}, and this
to n @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  INDI {1:1}, and in turn to +1
<<CHILD_TO_FAMILY_LINK>>  {0:M}, which leads to n @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 FAM and
thence to the @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  INDI {1:1}, for Andy. Or what am I missing
here?   

-- 
 
       Haines Brown, KB1GRM