Re: Genealogical evidence and data model

Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> 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.

   FTM 16 manages this


Menu >>> People >> Other Parents

drop down menu for relation****p
natural
step
unknown

family member


so two fathers with unknown for type of relation****p

Hugh W