Re: Genealogical evidence and data model

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:32:49 -0500, Haines Brown
<brownh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> declaimed the following in
soc.genealogy.computing:


> Wes, sorry to be so slow about this. When there is a father-child
> relation (in any database), aren't we always identifying specific
> persons? That is, child is Child A because we always uniquely
> distinguished that child from others. Now, Child A has a father, which
> we also always specifally identify as Father A. So if we trace back from
> child to parent, it is always from Child A to Father A. Are we not
> always identifying specific people?
>
	I believe the hypothesis is one grandchild; two people who could be
the father, but no evidence is available to isolate to one of the two.
All we know is that one of the two (Father A1 or Father A2) IS the
father.

	Most genealogy programs have no way to handle this in a way that can
be navigated directly. One has to attach the child to one or the other
father, and can only record the ambiguity using some analyst's text note
of the form "The father is not fully identified at this time, person XXX
might be the real father".

	The better event-based systems would permit adding a secondary
"father" relation****p; in this way, both possible fathers are directly
linked in the database. For re****t purposes, one would have to be
identified as "primary", but no "text note" is needed to explain the
ambiguity on screen.
-- 
	Wulfraed	Dennis Lee Bieber		KD6MOG
	wlfraed@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Bestiaria Sup****t Staff:		web-asst@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
		HTTP://www.bestiaria.com/