Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:11:12 -0500, Haines Brown
> <brownh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> A very interesting thread. I hope no one minds if a non-genealogist
>> jumps in with questions.
>>
>> My sense of the distinction of a relation-based and an event based
>> structure is clear to me only in the abstract, but not in concrete
>> terms. Would someone be willing to offer a simple example of each to
>> help make the distinction clearer?
>
> I've given this a different subject line because it is a different
thread.
>
> I've long felt a need for event-based software that would take a
different
> approach to ordinary lineage-linked genealogy software and take a
different
> approach. It woudl be useful for family history research rather than
pure
> genealogy, and for other kind of historical research as well.
>
> I've even developed a sort of data model, which I've semi-implemented in
> creating a database to illustrate it.
>
> Let me try to give a concrete illustration of the difference.
>
> Say you are writing a biography of a person, and you want software to
help
> you in your research.
>
> In a hypothetical event-based program you would enter people who
impinged on
> the life of your subject as you do with genealogy software. Some would
be
> genealogically related and some not.
>
> The birth event, for example, would have your subject's birth, with
parents
> (obviously), but others like midwives, obstetricians and so on also
linked.
>
> Twenty-one years later there might be a 21st birthday party, and you
would
> have that as an event, and a description of the event, and then link
people in
> your database to the event -- friends and relatives who attended.
>
> After entering a lot of events in the subject's life, you could create a
> chronology of the events, and of the people associated with your subject
at
> each stage - parents, friends, teachers, classmates, bosses, and so on.
If you
> were doing a biography, you could include in notes on various people
their
> recollections of the subject, and the subjects recollections of them.
>
> In this hypothetical program, it should be possibly to im****t family
relations
> (via GEDCOM) from lineage-linked software, but also from address books
etc.
>
> Such software could be used for other purposes.
>
> Onme of the things I do research on is African Independent churches. I
have
> three different databases or datasets -- churches, leaders and events.
It
> would be useful to be able to link them in a relational database, but I
don't
> have the skill to design such a database. Also, as software goes
obsolete one
> would spend more time on redesigning it than entering and manipulating
data,
> so you would never get any reseach done because you would always be
tinkering
> with the tools. I once tried to do it with Paradox, but now everyone
uses
> Access, and it would have to be rewritten from scratch, and I've never
found
> books on Access that can tell me what I used to know about Paradox.
>
> So I lumber along using an old DOS program called Inmagic, which serves
my
> purpose.
>
> I'm playing with a Windows program called askSam (I also continue to use
the
> DOS version) which I use for entering raw genealogical data from
different
> sources and material for other research projects. These are useful
research
> tools, but an event-based relational program would be a useful addition.
>
What I have in mind as an ideal would go one step further and be
record-based (a record in this sense being a historical record, not a
database row). The reason is that a a single event may be do***ented by
more than one record whilst a single record could do***ent more than one
event.
As a real example of the first a local apothecary do***ents the death of
a patient, John Goddard, his burial a few days later and a few days
later than that the death of the patient's wife, name not stated. The
parish register do***ents the burials giving the wife's name as
Elizabeth (off-hand I can't remember whether the register gives the
dates of death).
As a hypothetical example of the second one might have a family bible
entry recording a death in childbirth. This would be a single record
but two separate genealogical events, a birth and a death.
The first section of such a data model would contain a class for the
record itself and a class for the source. This section deals with
evidence.
The next section would be a set of cl***** for the individuals, events
and places named in the record. Each object of such cl***** would be
linked to a single object of the record class. Names of people and
placed would be given exactly as they occur in the original record and
the role played in the record would be given. (What happens of the name
is given twice with different spellings? There would be two records one
for each spelling. For instance I have a marriage register entry where
the bride's name was filled in as "Kay" but she signed "Kay".) This
section deals with analysis of the evidence.
Each object would have a globally unique identifier (see Wikipedia for
UID or GUID). Once published an object should not be modified.
Analysis objects should not be merged. This solves one of Robert
Grumbines' problems. We don't need to trace the route by which one of
these objects has been acquired: all copies should be the same and if
anyone feels that a correction should be made then a new object should
be created with a cross reference to the old.
The next section would be a set of cl***** to represent what we believe
to be the historical individuals and events and geographical places
which we believe underlie those given in the records. As regards people
and events these could be quite light-weight objects as the bulk of the
information relevant to them is carried in the objects linked to them;
their main purpose is to exist as hubs for such links and to provide a
standard name for an individual (e.g. "John Goddard of Scholes" as a
standard name for an individual who finally settled in that hamlet after
at least three previous homes spanning two parishes). This section
represents part of our historical reconstruction.
My separate cl***** for analysis and reconstruction individuals is
reflected in the discussion of different categories of examples of the
PERSONA entity in the GENTECH do***entation but there is no
differentiation in the actual model.
There would be a set of cl***** ("association cl*****" in UML terms)
used to link analysis objects to reconstruction objects. cf the
ASSERTION entity of the GENTECH model. These would give an estimation of
the confidence with which we link the reconstructed individual to the
analysis objects. These could record negative associations - for
instance to state that John of Scholes was not the John Goddard whose
death was recorded by the diarist in my early example.
There would be another set of cl***** to represent relation****ps between
reconstructed individuals. These could be families or, in Steve's case,
churches. cf GENTECH's GROUP entity. I would have an association class
to link relation****ps to individuals. Again, cf GENTECH's ASSERTION.
For instance there would be a relation object for John of Scholes'
family with an association class to represent John's role as father.
Ideally the reconstruction objects would be stable in much the same way
as the evidence cl*****. The association cl***** would be less stable -
they could be added or subtracted as views change and they provide for
the many-to-many links between analysis and reconstruction which would
record the multiple candidate situation I've posed in other posts.
--
Ian
Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk
|
