Re: Genealogical evidence and data model

Haines Brown wrote:

> 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?   
> 


Have you EVER heard the phrase "KISS it." ??  There is no 
need to do a Rube Goldberg to cir***navigate the 
storage-structure of HOOD, Robin.

The base problem is -- "grandchild" and "nephew" are NOT 
terms recognized by any genealogical format, paper or 
digital/  No one says the relation****ps don't exist, it's 
just that there has NEVER been a uniform of of recording 
that, short of "He is a nephew of ..." or "She is named as a 
grandchild in the will of ..."  Many of us create 
pseudo-persons as the link:  I have a known grandchild but 
no way to determine which of 4 men are the father?  I give 
the grandparents an UNKNOWN child of UNKNOWN ***, and that 
UNKNOWN person had Known Grandchild.  This has the dubious 
advantage of being both right and wrong simultaneously, AND 
of transferring successfully and successfully communicating 
the relation****p in printed, verbal, format.

Now, those event-linked databases we've covered in this 
group DO allow you to link the named heirs to the WILL, not 
to the Testator, and allow that link to be machine-readable, 
but I doubt VERY seriously that the base relation****p can be 
successfully moved out of an event-linked system into a 
lineage-linked system.  PAGING: Bob Velke??

Cheryl