paul womack
unread,May 21, 2015, 4:08:16 AM5/21/15Sign in to reply to author
Sign in to forward
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Sign in to report message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to hugi...@googlegroups.com
There seems to a underlying, unspoken theme in the recent discussions
on variant/nested data.
Many of the examples raised mention that multiple sources
might well spell a name differently, or that a place might
be known by multiple names.
Further, place of birth might well be stated to different
degrees of precision on multiple sources
(I've had a case where the "true" location was probably
a village called "Greater Blah", there also being a Lesser Blah", but one
census simply listed "Blah", and yet another listed the nearby
larger town).
And yet the person was (obviously...) only born in one place.
The difficulty here (I believe) is that there is no clean
distinction between a "raw" transcription, (probably textual)
a semantic transcription (e.g. where the *name* of a place
is interpreteted to a place *object*), an aggregate
interpretation (e.g. where multiple sources are conglomerated
into a consensus place object), and deductions (where the process
of reaching a conclusion involves logic and interpretation
as well as "averaging").
I think some of the recent suggestions as to features
are all tiptoeing around the edges of this very fundemental
concept - that the process of genealogy involves
a progression from "raw sources" to a "concluded tree".
Of course, at the moment, most of us are using
gramps to hold BOTH, (along with the intermediate stages
of the process), and yet there is nothing explicit
in the gramps model (or any other software I'm aware of)
to codify or mark these stages.
I feel that feature development in terms of data representation
should have this distinction (raw->conclusion) in mind as a key guiding design concept.
BugBear