Documenting relationships - am I missing something obvious?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
17 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Documenting relationships - am I missing something obvious?

Jesse Meyer
Hello,

I'm wondering how people document relationships in such a way to easily
find it later.

Say I have a man, Bart Simpson (yes, we're going with an easy example
here), and document #1 shows that Maggie is his sister. Through Maggie,
I find document #2 that links Maggie to her parents Homer and Marge
Simpson.  That leads me to document #3, which links Homer and Marge to
their children Bart, Lisa and Maggie.  Lisa then leads me to document #4
that links Mona Simpson as her (presumably paternal) grandmother.

Then a year goes by, I'm looking at some other data, and it conflicts
with what I have.

How do I store the evidence for relationships in order to easily
retrieve it later?

Thanks



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting relationships - am I missing something obvious?

Mark
Is this an example of the general problem that all documentation is only ever probablistic, yet genealogical software does not cater for probablistic relationships; it demands that two individuals either are or are not connected. Like a lot of other researchers, I imagine, I find I am dealing with the middle ground much of the time - where there is more than one possible connection, but no evidence that could be deemed conclusive.

I don't have an answer to this. I've separated from my extended family tree of 1,800 individuals a small subset of close ancestors whose connections are almost certain (whatever I mean by that), and I have chosen to focus all my efforts on documenting their lives, while effectively ignoring the rest.

The sort of problem I encounter is as follows:

1. I find a marriage record that names the fathers of a known bride and groom (B&G).
2. I then find five individuals with G's father's name, all born in B&G's village over a period of, say, ten years, 25-35 years before B&G's marriage. They all have some probability of being G's father.
3. I then find that one lived on the same lane as G.
4. I find that two had the same occupation as G.

I sometimes feel that there should be some way of weighing such information, without making a commitment to one and only one connection.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting relationships - am I missingsomething obvious?

ACProctor
This is probably not relevant to the OP's question, Mark, but I would like
to correct something.

>> yet genealogical software does not cater for probabilistic relationships

My own software - which\I'm afraid is non-commercial - stores a
representation of relationships against the corresponding data source:
http://parallax-viewpoint.blogspot.com/2014/01/role-of-role.html. This means
the OP's case is easily handled, just as when data sources disagree on
someone's date-of-birth. Also, in both cases, the conclusion
dates/relationships can be constructed separately based on all that
differing evidence.

Sorry for the digression. I know it isn't vey relevant in a Gramps thread.

    Tony Proctor

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Documenting relationships - am I
missingsomething obvious?


> Is this an example of the general problem that all documentation is only
> ever
> probablistic, yet genealogical software does not cater for probablistic
> relationships; it demands that two individuals either are or are not
> connected. Like a lot of other researchers, I imagine, I find I am dealing
> with the middle ground much of the time - where there is more than one
> possible connection, but no evidence that could be deemed conclusive.
>
> I don't have an answer to this. I've separated from my extended family
> tree
> of 1,800 individuals a small subset of close ancestors whose connections
> are
> almost certain (whatever I mean by that), and I have chosen to focus all
> my
> efforts on documenting their lives, while effectively ignoring the rest.
>
> The sort of problem I encounter is as follows:
>
> 1. I find a marriage record that names the fathers of a known bride and
> groom (B&G).
> 2. I then find five individuals with G's father's name, all born in B&G's
> village over a period of, say, ten years, 25-35 years before B&G's
> marriage.
> They all have some probability of being G's father.
> 3. I then find that one lived on the same lane as G.
> 4. I find that two had the same occupation as G.
>
> I sometimes feel that there should be some way of weighing such
> information,
> without making a commitment to one and only one connection.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/Documenting-relationships-am-I-missing-something-obvious-tp4664345p4664346.html
> Sent from the GRAMPS - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting relationships - am I missingsomething obvious?

paul womack
Tony Proctor wrote: (of other software)

Gramps *does* explicitly store relationships;

In the family dialog, when you click on a child, you open
the Child Reference Editor (not the child editor, which is just a person).

A child reference can carry as many separate citations and notes
as any other piece of data in Gramps.

The biggest problem is that if you have a person represented
as a probably/possible child of multiple families, most of
the tree drawing software will go a bit nuts.

But the database will have no trouble storing what you wish
to represent.

  BugBear

> This is probably not relevant to the OP's question, Mark, but I would like
> to correct something.
>
>>> yet genealogical software does not cater for probabilistic relationships
>
> My own software - which\I'm afraid is non-commercial - stores a
> representation of relationships against the corresponding data source:
> http://parallax-viewpoint.blogspot.com/2014/01/role-of-role.html. This means
> the OP's case is easily handled, just as when data sources disagree on
> someone's date-of-birth. Also, in both cases, the conclusion
> dates/relationships can be constructed separately based on all that
> differing evidence.
>
> Sorry for the digression. I know it isn't vey relevant in a Gramps thread.
>
>      Tony Proctor
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark" <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Documenting relationships - am I
> missingsomething obvious?
>
>
>> Is this an example of the general problem that all documentation is only
>> ever
>> probablistic, yet genealogical software does not cater for probablistic
>> relationships; it demands that two individuals either are or are not
>> connected. Like a lot of other researchers, I imagine, I find I am dealing
>> with the middle ground much of the time - where there is more than one
>> possible connection, but no evidence that could be deemed conclusive.
>>
>> I don't have an answer to this. I've separated from my extended family
>> tree
>> of 1,800 individuals a small subset of close ancestors whose connections
>> are
>> almost certain (whatever I mean by that), and I have chosen to focus all
>> my
>> efforts on documenting their lives, while effectively ignoring the rest.
>>
>> The sort of problem I encounter is as follows:
>>
>> 1. I find a marriage record that names the fathers of a known bride and
>> groom (B&G).
>> 2. I then find five individuals with G's father's name, all born in B&G's
>> village over a period of, say, ten years, 25-35 years before B&G's
>> marriage.
>> They all have some probability of being G's father.
>> 3. I then find that one lived on the same lane as G.
>> 4. I find that two had the same occupation as G.
>>
>> I sometimes feel that there should be some way of weighing such
>> information,
>> without making a commitment to one and only one connection.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/Documenting-relationships-am-I-missing-something-obvious-tp4664345p4664346.html
>> Sent from the GRAMPS - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
>> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
>> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
>> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gramps-users mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting relationships - am I missingsomething obvious?

ACProctor
Thanks Paul. I didn't mean to start a compare-and-contrast. The main reason
I mentioned that "other software" was that as a part of its evidence
structure, those Role-based personal relationships can be
probabilistic.Hence, that cited sentence was not strictly correct.

    Tony Proctor

----- Original Message -----
From: "paul womack" <[hidden email]>
To: "Mark" <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Documenting relationships - am I
missingsomething obvious?


> Tony Proctor wrote: (of other software)
>
> Gramps *does* explicitly store relationships;
>
> In the family dialog, when you click on a child, you open
> the Child Reference Editor (not the child editor, which is just a person).
>
> A child reference can carry as many separate citations and notes
> as any other piece of data in Gramps.
>
> The biggest problem is that if you have a person represented
> as a probably/possible child of multiple families, most of
> the tree drawing software will go a bit nuts.
>
> But the database will have no trouble storing what you wish
> to represent.
>
>  BugBear
>
>> This is probably not relevant to the OP's question, Mark, but I would
>> like
>> to correct something.
>>
>>>> yet genealogical software does not cater for probabilistic
>>>> relationships
>>
>> My own software - which\I'm afraid is non-commercial - stores a
>> representation of relationships against the corresponding data source:
>> http://parallax-viewpoint.blogspot.com/2014/01/role-of-role.html. This
>> means
>> the OP's case is easily handled, just as when data sources disagree on
>> someone's date-of-birth. Also, in both cases, the conclusion
>> dates/relationships can be constructed separately based on all that
>> differing evidence.
>>
>> Sorry for the digression. I know it isn't vey relevant in a Gramps
>> thread.
>>
>>      Tony Proctor
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Mark" <[hidden email]>
>> To: <[hidden email]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:17 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Documenting relationships - am I
>> missingsomething obvious?
>>
>>
>>> Is this an example of the general problem that all documentation is only
>>> ever
>>> probablistic, yet genealogical software does not cater for probablistic
>>> relationships; it demands that two individuals either are or are not
>>> connected. Like a lot of other researchers, I imagine, I find I am
>>> dealing
>>> with the middle ground much of the time - where there is more than one
>>> possible connection, but no evidence that could be deemed conclusive.
>>>
>>> I don't have an answer to this. I've separated from my extended family
>>> tree
>>> of 1,800 individuals a small subset of close ancestors whose connections
>>> are
>>> almost certain (whatever I mean by that), and I have chosen to focus all
>>> my
>>> efforts on documenting their lives, while effectively ignoring the rest.
>>>
>>> The sort of problem I encounter is as follows:
>>>
>>> 1. I find a marriage record that names the fathers of a known bride and
>>> groom (B&G).
>>> 2. I then find five individuals with G's father's name, all born in
>>> B&G's
>>> village over a period of, say, ten years, 25-35 years before B&G's
>>> marriage.
>>> They all have some probability of being G's father.
>>> 3. I then find that one lived on the same lane as G.
>>> 4. I find that two had the same occupation as G.
>>>
>>> I sometimes feel that there should be some way of weighing such
>>> information,
>>> without making a commitment to one and only one connection.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/Documenting-relationships-am-I-missing-something-obvious-tp4664345p4664346.html
>>> Sent from the GRAMPS - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
>>> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
>>> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
>>> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
>>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gramps-users mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
>> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
>> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
>> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gramps-users mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting relationships - am I missingsomething obvious?

jerome
In reply to this post by paul womack

It was one of the first Gramps Enhancement Proposals (GEPS), inherited
from Gedcom structure! Feel free to complete the current page[1].


[1]
https://www.gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=GEPS_001:_Relationship_type_event_link


Le mar. 21 janv. 2014 at 9:57,paul womack <[hidden email]> a
écrit :

> Tony Proctor wrote: (of other software)
>
> Gramps *does* explicitly store relationships;
>
> In the family dialog, when you click on a child, you open
> the Child Reference Editor (not the child editor, which is just a
> person).
>
> A child reference can carry as many separate citations and notes
> as any other piece of data in Gramps.
>
> The biggest problem is that if you have a person represented
> as a probably/possible child of multiple families, most of
> the tree drawing software will go a bit nuts.
>
> But the database will have no trouble storing what you wish
> to represent.
>
>   BugBear
>
>>  This is probably not relevant to the OP's question, Mark, but I
>> would like
>>  to correct something.
>>
>>>>  yet genealogical software does not cater for probabilistic
>>>> relationships
>>>>
>>  My own software - which\I'm afraid is non-commercial - stores a
>>  representation of relationships against the corresponding data
>> source:
>>  http://parallax-viewpoint.blogspot.com/2014/01/role-of-role.html.
>> This means
>>  the OP's case is easily handled, just as when data sources disagree
>> on
>>  someone's date-of-birth. Also, in both cases, the conclusion
>>  dates/relationships can be constructed separately based on all that
>>  differing evidence.
>>
>>  Sorry for the digression. I know it isn't vey relevant in a Gramps
>> thread.
>>
>>       Tony Proctor
>>
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>  From: "Mark" <[hidden email]>
>>  To: <[hidden email]>
>>  Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:17 AM
>>  Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Documenting relationships - am I
>>  missingsomething obvious?
>>
>>
>>>  Is this an example of the general problem that all documentation
>>> is only
>>>  ever
>>>  probablistic, yet genealogical software does not cater for
>>> probablistic
>>>  relationships; it demands that two individuals either are or are
>>> not
>>>  connected. Like a lot of other researchers, I imagine, I find I am
>>> dealing
>>>  with the middle ground much of the time - where there is more than
>>> one
>>>  possible connection, but no evidence that could be deemed
>>> conclusive.
>>>
>>>  I don't have an answer to this. I've separated from my extended
>>> family
>>>  tree
>>>  of 1,800 individuals a small subset of close ancestors whose
>>> connections
>>>  are
>>>  almost certain (whatever I mean by that), and I have chosen to
>>> focus all
>>>  my
>>>  efforts on documenting their lives, while effectively ignoring the
>>> rest.
>>>
>>>  The sort of problem I encounter is as follows:
>>>
>>>  1. I find a marriage record that names the fathers of a known
>>> bride and
>>>  groom (B&G).
>>>  2. I then find five individuals with G's father's name, all born
>>> in B&G's
>>>  village over a period of, say, ten years, 25-35 years before B&G's
>>>  marriage.
>>>  They all have some probability of being G's father.
>>>  3. I then find that one lived on the same lane as G.
>>>  4. I find that two had the same occupation as G.
>>>
>>>  I sometimes feel that there should be some way of weighing such
>>>  information,
>>>  without making a commitment to one and only one connection.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  --
>>>  View this message in context:
>>>  
>>> http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/Documenting-relationships-am-I-missing-something-obvious-tp4664345p4664346.html
>>>  Sent from the GRAMPS - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>  
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>  CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
>>>  Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
>>>  Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In
>>> Between.
>>>  Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
>>>  
>>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>  Gramps-users mailing list
>>>  [hidden email]
>>>  https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>>>
>>
>>  
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
>>  Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
>>  Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In
>> Between.
>>  Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
>>  
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Gramps-users mailing list
>>  [hidden email]
>>  https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting relationships - am I missingsomething obvious?

jerome

See also
https://www.gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:GEPS_001:_Relationship_type_event_link

Le mar. 21 janv. 2014 at 12:12,Jerome <[hidden email]> a écrit :

>
> It was one of the first Gramps Enhancement Proposals (GEPS),
> inherited
> from Gedcom structure! Feel free to complete the current page[1].
>
>
> [1]
> https://www.gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=GEPS_001:_Relationship_type_event_link
>
>
> Le mar. 21 janv. 2014 at 9:57,paul womack <[hidden email]> a
> écrit :
>>  Tony Proctor wrote: (of other software)
>>  
>>  Gramps *does* explicitly store relationships;
>>  
>>  In the family dialog, when you click on a child, you open
>>  the Child Reference Editor (not the child editor, which is just a
>>  person).
>>  
>>  A child reference can carry as many separate citations and notes
>>  as any other piece of data in Gramps.
>>  
>>  The biggest problem is that if you have a person represented
>>  as a probably/possible child of multiple families, most of
>>  the tree drawing software will go a bit nuts.
>>  
>>  But the database will have no trouble storing what you wish
>>  to represent.
>>  
>>    BugBear
>>  
>>>   This is probably not relevant to the OP's question, Mark, but I
>>>  would like
>>>   to correct something.
>>>  
>>>>>   yet genealogical software does not cater for probabilistic
>>>>>  relationships
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>   My own software - which\I'm afraid is non-commercial - stores a
>>>   representation of relationships against the corresponding data
>>>  source:
>>>   http://parallax-viewpoint.blogspot.com/2014/01/role-of-role.html.
>>>  This means
>>>   the OP's case is easily handled, just as when data sources
>>> disagree
>>>  on
>>>   someone's date-of-birth. Also, in both cases, the conclusion
>>>   dates/relationships can be constructed separately based on all
>>> that
>>>   differing evidence.
>>>  
>>>   Sorry for the digression. I know it isn't vey relevant in a
>>> Gramps
>>>  thread.
>>>  
>>>        Tony Proctor
>>>  
>>>   ----- Original Message -----
>>>   From: "Mark" <[hidden email]>
>>>   To: <[hidden email]>
>>>   Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:17 AM
>>>   Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Documenting relationships - am I
>>>   missingsomething obvious?
>>>  
>>>  
>>>>   Is this an example of the general problem that all documentation
>>>>  is only
>>>>   ever
>>>>   probablistic, yet genealogical software does not cater for
>>>>  probablistic
>>>>   relationships; it demands that two individuals either are or are
>>>>  not
>>>>   connected. Like a lot of other researchers, I imagine, I find I
>>>> am
>>>>  dealing
>>>>   with the middle ground much of the time - where there is more
>>>> than
>>>>  one
>>>>   possible connection, but no evidence that could be deemed
>>>>  conclusive.
>>>>  
>>>>   I don't have an answer to this. I've separated from my extended
>>>>  family
>>>>   tree
>>>>   of 1,800 individuals a small subset of close ancestors whose
>>>>  connections
>>>>   are
>>>>   almost certain (whatever I mean by that), and I have chosen to
>>>>  focus all
>>>>   my
>>>>   efforts on documenting their lives, while effectively ignoring
>>>> the
>>>>  rest.
>>>>  
>>>>   The sort of problem I encounter is as follows:
>>>>  
>>>>   1. I find a marriage record that names the fathers of a known
>>>>  bride and
>>>>   groom (B&G).
>>>>   2. I then find five individuals with G's father's name, all born
>>>>  in B&G's
>>>>   village over a period of, say, ten years, 25-35 years before
>>>> B&G's
>>>>   marriage.
>>>>   They all have some probability of being G's father.
>>>>   3. I then find that one lived on the same lane as G.
>>>>   4. I find that two had the same occupation as G.
>>>>  
>>>>   I sometimes feel that there should be some way of weighing such
>>>>   information,
>>>>   without making a commitment to one and only one connection.
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>   --
>>>>   View this message in context:
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/Documenting-relationships-am-I-missing-something-obvious-tp4664345p4664346.html
>>>>   Sent from the GRAMPS - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>   CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
>>>>   Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
>>>>   Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In
>>>>  Between.
>>>>   Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>>   Gramps-users mailing list
>>>>   [hidden email]
>>>>   https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>   CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
>>>   Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
>>>   Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In
>>>  Between.
>>>   Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
>>>  
>>>  
>>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>   Gramps-users mailing list
>>>   [hidden email]
>>>   https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>>>  
>>>  
>>>
>>  
>>  
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
>>  Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
>>  Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In
>> Between.
>>  Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
>>  
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Gramps-users mailing list
>>  [hidden email]
>>  https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>>  
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting relationships - am I missing something obvious?

enno
In reply to this post by Jesse Meyer
Hello

> I'm wondering how people document relationships in such a way to easily
> find it later.
>
> Say I have a man, Bart Simpson (yes, we're going with an easy example
> here), and document #1 shows that Maggie is his sister. Through Maggie,
> I find document #2 that links Maggie to her parents Homer and Marge
> Simpson.  That leads me to document #3, which links Homer and Marge to
> their children Bart, Lisa and Maggie.  Lisa then leads me to document #4
> that links Mona Simpson as her (presumably paternal) grandmother.
>
> Then a year goes by, I'm looking at some other data, and it conflicts
> with what I have.
>
> How do I store the evidence for relationships in order to easily
> retrieve it later?
When I have the patience for it, which is quite often not the case, I
try store every piece of evidence, not matter whether it's an email or a
record on a web page, in a Gramps citation. I write citation here, not
source, because it allows me to group emails from a single author, or
records from a single site.

In most cases, I then connect citations to events, not relationships.
That is because in most cases, the citation reflects a single birth,
marriage, or death record, which I consider proof for an event, which
then implies a relationship.

In some cases, you don't find direct information about an event in a
document, for instance when you use a census. In that, you can use the
ages of the family members as a sort of proof for birth events, with
approximate dates, but in general a census has no proof for a marriage
event, in which case, it can probably be better used as evidence for the
relation itself. Same for genealogies that you find on the web.

In this case, conflicting evidence, can most times be translated to
conflicting events, like multiple births for a single person. Gramps can
perfectly work with that.

One problem I see is that evidence (citations) for events is not shown
when you look at a persons data. You have to select an event for that,
and I would love for Gramps to be expanded in such a way that all
citations for events can be seen without clicking each individual one.

And when I think of it, there may be a gramplet for that, I don't know.
I have the same wish for the other way around, btw.

regards,

Enno


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting relationships - am I missing something obvious?

Martin Steer-2
In reply to this post by Jesse Meyer
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 08:39:53PM -0600, dasunt wrote:

>
>I'm wondering how people document relationships in such a way to easily
>find it later.
>
>Say I have a man, Bart Simpson (yes, we're going with an easy example
>here), and document #1 shows that Maggie is his sister. Through Maggie,
>I find document #2 that links Maggie to her parents Homer and Marge
>Simpson.  That leads me to document #3, which links Homer and Marge to
>their children Bart, Lisa and Maggie.  Lisa then leads me to document #4
>that links Mona Simpson as her (presumably paternal) grandmother.
>
>Then a year goes by, I'm looking at some other data, and it conflicts
>with what I have.
>
>How do I store the evidence for relationships in order to easily
>retrieve it later?

doc#1: Bart Simpson
doc#1: sister, Maggie

doc#2: Maggie
doc#2: father, Homer Simpson
doc#2: mother, Marge Simpson

doc#3: Homer & Marge
doc#3: child, Bart
doc#3: child, Lisa
doc#3: child, Maggie

doc#4: Lisa
doc#4: grandmother, Mona Simpson

I understand that some people like to store this part of the record
outside their genealogy software, in a spreadsheet, for example. That
seems a reasonable way to do it, if you regard Gramps merely as a tool
to hold and display your conclusions.

Inside Gramps, perhaps you could try storing it as citation data, so:

Families (Homer & Marge)
-> Child ref editor (Bart)
-> Source citation (doc#1)
-> Citation info
-> Data (sister, Maggie)

I have no idea how well this would work, but Families seems the right
place, and you need (?) to keep it with both Bart and the source.

The catch could come at the 'easily retrieve' (and display) stage.

M.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting relationships - am I missing something obvious?

Nick Hall-6
In reply to this post by enno
On 21/01/14 15:08, Enno Borgsteede wrote:
> When I have the patience for it, which is quite often not the case, I
> try store every piece of evidence, not matter whether it's an email or a
> record on a web page, in a Gramps citation. I write citation here, not
> source, because it allows me to group emails from a single author, or
> records from a single site.

I also create sources to hold a group of related sources.  I find it
looks better in the interface.


>
> In most cases, I then connect citations to events, not relationships.
> That is because in most cases, the citation reflects a single birth,
> marriage, or death record, which I consider proof for an event, which
> then implies a relationship.

The vast majority of my citations are connected to events.  Some are
connected to attributes.


>
> In some cases, you don't find direct information about an event in a
> document, for instance when you use a census. In that, you can use the
> ages of the family members as a sort of proof for birth events, with
> approximate dates, but in general a census has no proof for a marriage
> event, in which case, it can probably be better used as evidence for the
> relation itself. Same for genealogies that you find on the web.

The Overview gramplet is useful for displaying Age, Condition (Marital
Status), Occupation and Where Born attributes connected to event references.


> In this case, conflicting evidence, can most times be translated to
> conflicting events, like multiple births for a single person. Gramps can
> perfectly work with that.
>
> One problem I see is that evidence (citations) for events is not shown
> when you look at a persons data. You have to select an event for that,
> and I would love for Gramps to be expanded in such a way that all
> citations for events can be seen without clicking each individual one.

The Citations gramplet should show all citations for a person, including
citations for events.

The Source Media gramplet will do the same, but also give you a
thumbnail of citation media.  Double-clicking will let you view the
image in the default viewer.


>
> And when I think of it, there may be a gramplet for that, I don't know.
> I have the same wish for the other way around, btw.

I seem to remember writing a gramplet to do this, but didn't make it
public.  What exactly are you looking for?


Nick.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting relationships - am I missing something obvious?

enno
Hi Nick,
> The Citations gramplet should show all citations for a person,
> including citations for events. The Source Media gramplet will do the
> same, but also give you a thumbnail of citation media. Double-clicking
> will let you view the image in the default viewer.
Looks like I forgot about that. I found the Citations gramplet in the
bottom window ...
>> And when I think of it, there may be a gramplet for that, I don't know.
>> I have the same wish for the other way around, btw.
> I seem to remember writing a gramplet to do this, but didn't make it
> public.  What exactly are you looking for?
Looks like it's already there, as references. It shows where a citation
is used, and that's what I looked for.

So, I was asking the obvious. :-)

cheers,

Enno


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting relationships - am I missing something obvious?

Nick Hall-6
On 21/01/14 20:44, Enno Borgsteede wrote:
>> I seem to remember writing a gramplet to do this, but didn't make it
>> >public.  What exactly are you looking for?
> Looks like it's already there, as references. It shows where a citation
> is used, and that's what I looked for.
>
> So, I was asking the obvious.:-)

The one that I was thinking about showed backlinks of backlinks.  So it
gave events for sources instead of citations.

I did something similar for events.   The Participants gramplet shows
all people that are participants of an event.  It follows any family
back to the father and mother.  You can find it in the add-ons repository.


Nick.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting relationships - am I missingsomething obvious?

Nick Hall-6
In reply to this post by ACProctor
On 21/01/14 08:32, Tony Proctor wrote:

> My own software - which\I'm afraid is non-commercial - stores a
> representation of relationships against the corresponding data source:
> http://parallax-viewpoint.blogspot.com/2014/01/role-of-role.html. This means
> the OP's case is easily handled, just as when data sources disagree on
> someone's date-of-birth. Also, in both cases, the conclusion
> dates/relationships can be constructed separately based on all that
> differing evidence.
>
> Sorry for the digression. I know it isn't vey relevant in a Gramps thread.
>
Tony,

This is interesting because it is possible to do something very similar
in Gramps.

Event reference objects, which connect people to events, hold a role.  
In the census add-ons, I also store attributes in the event reference
objects.  The census event is linked to a citation.  This works quite
well for entering census data and comparing textual attributes.

However, there are not many pre-defined values for the role and using
custom values causes problems.  The roles are displayed in reports and
the values of PRIMARY and FAMILY are used to determine the main
participant of an event.  So I ended up using another attribute
(Relation) to store the role.

Things got worse when I wrote a similar add-on for marriages.  In
Gramps, events such as marriage and divorce are linked to a family,
rather than to the two people involved.  This means I would have to use
attributes such as 'Groom Age' and 'Bride Age' rather than 'Age'.  
Although this is possible, I was never happy with the design, and kept
my new add-ons private.

Looking at your STEMMA model, I think that the way you handle families
is a better design.  Allowing more than just a text type in properties
is also a good idea.  Perhaps these are a couple of enhancements we
could consider for Gramps?

Nick.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting relationships - am I missingsomething obvious?

ACProctor
Thanks for the interest Nick.

Multi-person events are essential for recording history, but you need an
extensible Role system to make it work. Luckily, I can add new Roles (&
other types) easily using namespaces.

Re: Groups (that I use for modelling families), I'll be revisiting this in a
couple of weeks. I'm not happy with the way that I slotted the entity into
my schema. If I make it a first-class citizen, like Person & Place, then it
becomes incredibly powerful and I can model virtually anything. Plus I have
a great idea to demonstrate it. I can drop interested people a line when
I've published something.

I hope people aren't getting annoyed with me chiming in now-and-then. I
don't want it to sound like I'm hijacking threads to promote STEMMA. One of
the goals of that project was to investigate solutions that no one else was
looking at, and then to raise awareness of them. If you see that some of
those ideas might help the gramps product then that's fantastic

    Tony Proctor

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Hall" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Documenting relationships - am I
missingsomething obvious?


> On 21/01/14 08:32, Tony Proctor wrote:
>> My own software - which\I'm afraid is non-commercial - stores a
>> representation of relationships against the corresponding data source:
>> http://parallax-viewpoint.blogspot.com/2014/01/role-of-role.html. This
>> means
>> the OP's case is easily handled, just as when data sources disagree on
>> someone's date-of-birth. Also, in both cases, the conclusion
>> dates/relationships can be constructed separately based on all that
>> differing evidence.
>>
>> Sorry for the digression. I know it isn't vey relevant in a Gramps
>> thread.
>>
> Tony,
>
> This is interesting because it is possible to do something very similar
> in Gramps.
>
> Event reference objects, which connect people to events, hold a role.
> In the census add-ons, I also store attributes in the event reference
> objects.  The census event is linked to a citation.  This works quite
> well for entering census data and comparing textual attributes.
>
> However, there are not many pre-defined values for the role and using
> custom values causes problems.  The roles are displayed in reports and
> the values of PRIMARY and FAMILY are used to determine the main
> participant of an event.  So I ended up using another attribute
> (Relation) to store the role.
>
> Things got worse when I wrote a similar add-on for marriages.  In
> Gramps, events such as marriage and divorce are linked to a family,
> rather than to the two people involved.  This means I would have to use
> attributes such as 'Groom Age' and 'Bride Age' rather than 'Age'.
> Although this is possible, I was never happy with the design, and kept
> my new add-ons private.
>
> Looking at your STEMMA model, I think that the way you handle families
> is a better design.  Allowing more than just a text type in properties
> is also a good idea.  Perhaps these are a couple of enhancements we
> could consider for Gramps?
>
> Nick.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting relationships - am I missing something obvious?

jerome
In reply to this post by Nick Hall-6

Note, I vaguely remember some fixes on backlinks gramplet into gramps40!

It was rather around performance, more details and tests on bug
#7231[1].

OK, my test case was a little bit stupid, but Doug has found callback
issues.
eg, "keep calling functions when we should not. The limits are a
symptom, but the root cause is that we need to wait before calling some
of these functions again (or perhaps interrupting a function call that
we no longer need because we have moved to the next row). Even on my
computer (which is very fast) with lots of resources, it crashes, or
runs very slowly."

I tried to use backlinks of backlinks of backlinks on
RepositoriesReport with options! ie. Repository -> Sources ->
Citations -> Events

In theory, we should be able to still get these informations quickly,
but it has been limited to Citations; = not too much deeper.



[1] https://www.gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=7231


Le mar. 21 janv. 2014 at 22:01,Nick Hall <[hidden email]> a
écrit :

> On 21/01/14 20:44, Enno Borgsteede wrote:
>>>  I seem to remember writing a gramplet to do this, but didn't make
>>> it
>>>  >public.  What exactly are you looking for?
>>>
>>  Looks like it's already there, as references. It shows where a
>> citation
>>  is used, and that's what I looked for.
>>
>>  So, I was asking the obvious.:-)
>>
> The one that I was thinking about showed backlinks of backlinks.  So
> it
> gave events for sources instead of citations.
>
> I did something similar for events.   The Participants gramplet shows
> all people that are participants of an event.  It follows any family
> back to the father and mother.  You can find it in the add-ons
> repository.
>
>
> Nick.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting relationships - am I missing something obvious?

enno
In reply to this post by Nick Hall-6
Hi Nick,
> The one that I was thinking about showed backlinks of backlinks.  So it
> gave events for sources instead of citations.
Ah, ok. That's nice. And I would even go a step further, like starting
at the author. That may be more difficult, because I think authors are
not objects in Gramps, that you can (back)link from.

Reason to ask is that I like to group sources by author, to get events
associated with say, a specific church or civil authority, census
district, etc. Author is agent in GedcomX, and can of course also be a
cousin that you get information from.
> I did something similar for events.   The Participants gramplet shows
> all people that are participants of an event.  It follows any family
> back to the father and mother.  You can find it in the add-ons repository.
Thanks.

Enno


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Documenting relationships - am I missing something obvious?

Nick Hall-6
On 22/01/14 21:08, Enno Borgsteede wrote:

>> The one that I was thinking about showed backlinks of backlinks.  So it
>> >gave events for sources instead of citations.
> Ah, ok. That's nice. And I would even go a step further, like starting
> at the author. That may be more difficult, because I think authors are
> not objects in Gramps, that you can (back)link from.
>
> Reason to ask is that I like to group sources by author, to get events
> associated with say, a specific church or civil authority, census
> district, etc. Author is agent in GedcomX, and can of course also be a
> cousin that you get information from.

You could write a gramplet to display events for a source author, but
this would not be a very natural application for a gramplet. Most
gramplets respond to a change in the active object.

The best way to display this information would be in a report.

Unfortunately, filters don't seem to work.  There is no "Events for
having the citation filter" rule, and there is no "Sources having the
<parameters>" rule.

Nick.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users