singhals <singhals@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>> 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.
Well, yes, of course. I was only a set of links that I assumed could be
pursued by a machine, not trying to suggest it was either simple or
easy. I merely tried to infer from the GEDCOM standard that a machine
could ascerain the relation****ps, not that the way to do it was
ideal. I'm still not sure of the answer to the question. Wes
(understandably) did not understand it; you don't explicitly say "no".
> 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 ..."
I'm not sure I understand your point. I can state in English (a NOTE)
that person A is the grandchild of person B. On the other hand, you seem
to be pointing out that there's no genealogical format to express that
relation. True, but is that the issue? Can't I convert the
grandfather-grandchild relation into a series of two father-child
relations, each of which does have existence in genealogical format?
That is, the machine knows that the father of the father of person A is
the grandfather of person A. True, this relation must be calculated
(inferred), but what is wrong with that? What is the difference between
the phrases "parent's father" and "grandfather"?
> 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.
Understood, but I don't think it addresses the question I raised.
> 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??
Here you are using "event" in the TMG sense, not as a change of state. In
your brief scenario, we have a testator, a do***ent and an heir. These
are three things; that there is an action is only inferred (in fact,
they can exist prior to the testator's death, which puts these "things"
into motion to create an event).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but "event-link" sounds like
nothing more than a formal relation****p between a person and a thing
in contrast to one between persons. If so, I don't understand the
difference between it and a hierarchy of GEDCOM tags:
INDI
DEAT
SOUR .
For example, if I have an INDI record that contains a SOUR line, am I
not creatng a relation between that INDI and a source tied to him? If in
that INDI record I have a BIRT line, am I not linking that person to an
event (change in the person's state)?
--
Haines Brown, KB1GRM
|
