Re: Genealogical evidence and data model

My head's spinning ;-(

First, Cheryl pointed out that I should have said lineage-linked vs
event-linked, rather than relation-based vs event based. If she was only
insisting that I use conventional terminology, I would understand and
accept the correction. But she may imply that these are not synomyms,
but different concepts. If so, I'm still in the dark, such as the
difference between a lineage link and a relation.

Now Dennis says makes quite clear the difference between lineage-link
and event-link database. Or so I thought until:

> The alternative, used by TMG, is to create relation****p events --
> one event for father relation****p, one for mother relation****p. In TMG,
> every event ("tag") has room for two "principles", all the "other
> people" are added into a witness list in the event.

A "relation****p event" seems to conflate the categories. An "event" (in
the sciences, anyway) refers to a change of state. Yet the child-mother
relation is the _result_ of a birth event, but in itself does not refer
to a change of state. Also, who are the principles in the case of a
person's death? To presume that the death was witnessed seems
unwarranted.

At some earlier point in this thread, there was a suggestion that
event-link relates genealogy to historiography. I don't think that
stands up well as a valid generalization. While there is a particular
branch of history (narrative) that strings events together, that
approach is rather in a shadow these days. Historians often lay emphasis
on relations (such as class relations). There's also a possibility of
representing history in terms of process in which there is no "state",
but instead evenescent structures that constrain causal potencies, which
are primary. All I'm suggesting is that I don't believe one can assume
that historiography is simply or always based on events.

-- 
 
       Haines Brown, KB1GRM