Quantcast

Re : Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as a relationship type?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re : Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as a relationship type?

jerome
Hi,


It is not visible on Family Editor, but code is taking care of divorce event.
e.g., https://github.com/gramps-project/gramps/blob/master/gramps/gen/relationship.py#L1125

You can have some ex-"partner-values".
https://github.com/gramps-project/gramps/blob/master/gramps/gen/relationship.py#L827

I did not find clear samples on current code, just discover this by looking at Pull Request #347.


Jérôme

--------------------------------------------
En date de : Lun 26.12.16, John W. Kitz <[hidden email]> a écrit :

 Objet: [Gramps-users] Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as a relationship type?
 À: [hidden email]
 Date: Lundi 26 décembre 2016, 0h07
 
 Hi,
 
 I've been using Gramps since a couple of days. Consequently
 have only been
 able to enter a limited amount of information sofar, but I
 noticed that
 relationships can only be given four types, i.e. "Unmarried,
 Married, Civil
 Union and Unknown". Personal events on the other hand also
 include
 "Divorce".
 
 Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as
 a relationship
 type?
 
 Another thing that I noticed, which probably is related (no
 pun intended) to
 the above is this; when running the data verification tool
 from the tools
 menu one of the results I get is "Marriage date but not
 married", which I
 guess is caused by the fact that I entered a relationship
 with a marriage
 date, but a type of "Unmarried" because the couple in
 question at some point
 in time divorced. I included the divorce as a personal event
 for both people
 involved, but the relationship type isn't taken from the
 most recent
 personal event for both partner in the relationship nor can
 it be set to a
 type "Divorced" manually.
 
 Is there a particular reason why the data verification tool
 flags this as a
 warning?
 
 Regards, Jk.
 
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors
 Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer
 platforms.
 With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE.
 Training and support from Colfax.
 Order your platform today.http://sdm.link/intel
 _______________________________________________
 Gramps-users mailing list
 [hidden email]
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
 https://gramps-project.org
 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Re : Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as a relationship type?

Martnal
Jerome, 'Unmarried' is meant to describe a relationship where two people have not been through a marriage (Like me), but live together.  It is not intended to mark the curtailment or end of a marriage.  The divorce is a life event, not a type of relationship.  I suppose the divorce event is the day (or moment) the decree is issued.

(After GRAMP-ing for a year, this is my first attempt to return all the kind support I've had over the year.  I hope I got it right.  )

MJartin


Martin, SW London

I am using GRAMPS 4.2.3-1 on Windows 10.

I am researching surnames Loughborough, (London and Hartlepool), Watson, (Jarrow and Hartlepool), Ballard and Glassop (E. London), Mowbray, Pounder and Bulmer, (all Hartlepool), Leggett (Middlesborough and Prescot).
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Re : Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as a relationship type?

Brad Rogers
On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:13:59 -0800 (PST)
Martnal <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello Martnal,

>Jerome, 'Unmarried' is meant to describe a relationship where two
>people have not been through a marriage (Like me), but live together.

Possibly not even that;  two people that have a child together, but
*don't* live as a family unit.

Anyway, the point is that people will (ab)use things as they see fit.
Their choice.......

--
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
The public gets what the public wants
Going Underground - The Jam

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org

attachment0 (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Re : Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as a relationship type?

Ron Johnson
In reply to this post by Martnal
On 02/24/2017 10:20 AM, Brad Rogers wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:13:59 -0800 (PST)
> Martnal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hello Martnal,
>
>> Jerome, 'Unmarried' is meant to describe a relationship where two
>> people have not been through a marriage (Like me), but live together.
> Possibly not even that;  two people that have a child together, but
> *don't* live as a family unit.

Right.  Happens all the time.


--
World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Re : Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as a relationship type?

paul womack
Ron Johnson wrote:

> On 02/24/2017 10:20 AM, Brad Rogers wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:13:59 -0800 (PST)
>> Martnal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Martnal,
>>
>>> Jerome, 'Unmarried' is meant to describe a relationship where two
>>> people have not been through a marriage (Like me), but live together.
>> Possibly not even that;  two people that have a child together, but
>> *don't* live as a family unit.
>
> Right.  Happens all the time.

I wouldn't say all the time, but it happens. Couples
separate before or soon after the birth.

Part of life's rich (and sometimes unpleasant) tapestry.

   BugBear

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Re : Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as a relationship type?

Ron Johnson
In reply to this post by Ron Johnson
On 02/24/2017 10:43 AM, paul womack wrote:

> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> On 02/24/2017 10:20 AM, Brad Rogers wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 05:13:59 -0800 (PST)
>>> Martnal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Martnal,
>>>
>>>> Jerome, 'Unmarried' is meant to describe a relationship where two
>>>> people have not been through a marriage (Like me), but live together.
>>> Possibly not even that;  two people that have a child together, but
>>> *don't* live as a family unit.
>>
>> Right.  Happens all the time.
>
> I wouldn't say all the time, but it happens.

It does where I live... :(


--
World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Re : Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as a relationship type?

Martnal
In reply to this post by paul womack
This is all very true. It's getting a bit off topic but I shall briefly summarise part of my story. My father was born in 1928. His father died of natural causes in 1942 and his mother died 25 years later. We had many holidays with my father's sister, who then died in 1973.

Many years later when my father applied for a 10-year passport to visit the United States he had great trouble obtaining a birth certificate, applying in the name he had used for 55 years. To cut a long story short it turns out that the lady that we had many holidays with, who we ALL thought of as his sister, was actually his mother. The people who I thought of as my grandparents (the ones who died in 1942 and 1967) were actually my great grandparents. It seems that my father's mother got pregnant quickly, got married quickly, gave birth quickly, and quickly split up, leaving HER mother holding the baby.

Obviously it was a secret that his father's mother and grandmother both thought they were taking today graves. The Internet and UK Birth Records knew otherwise.  

Martin


Martin, SW London

I am using GRAMPS 4.2.3-1 on Windows 10.

I am researching surnames Loughborough, (London and Hartlepool), Watson, (Jarrow and Hartlepool), Ballard and Glassop (E. London), Mowbray, Pounder and Bulmer, (all Hartlepool), Leggett (Middlesborough and Prescot).
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Re : Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as a relationship type?

Brad Rogers
In reply to this post by paul womack
On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 16:43:14 +0000
paul womack <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello paul,

>I wouldn't say all the time, but it happens. Couples

I would.  It's happened in my family tree multiple times.  There are
various reasons for it, not all of them pleasant.

--
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
You're the psychotic daughter of a psychotic mother
Pure Mania - The Vibrators

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org

attachment0 (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Re : Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as a relationship type?

Dave Gilmore
In reply to this post by Martnal
Martin,

I have a couple similar situations in my tree. Daughter gets pregnant
super young under then scandalous circumstances and the baby is now her
"brother" or "sister" and grandma is listed as the mother.

Dave

On 2/24/2017 9:07 AM, Martnal wrote:

> This is all very true. It's getting a bit off topic but I shall briefly
> summarise part of my story. My father was born in 1928. His father died of
> natural causes in 1942 and his mother died 25 years later. We had many
> holidays with my father's sister, who then died in 1973.
>
> Many years later when my father applied for a 10-year passport to visit the
> United States he had great trouble obtaining a birth certificate, applying
> in the name he had used for 55 years. To cut a long story short it turns out
> that the lady that we had many holidays with, who we ALL thought of as his
> sister, was actually his mother. The people who I thought of as my
> grandparents (the ones who died in 1942 and 1967) were actually my great
> grandparents. It seems that my father's mother got pregnant quickly, got
> married quickly, gave birth quickly, and quickly split up, leaving HER
> mother holding the baby.
>
> Obviously it was a secret that his father's mother and grandmother both
> thought they were taking today graves. The Internet and UK Birth Records
> knew otherwise.
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> -----
>
>
> Martin, SW London
>
> I am using GRAMPS 4.2.3-1 on Windows 10.
>
> I am researching surnames Loughborough, (London and Hartlepool), Watson, (Jarrow and Hartlepool), Ballard and Glassop (E. London), Mowbray, Pounder and Bulmer, (all Hartlepool), Leggett (Middlesborough and Prescot).
> --
> View this message in context: http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/Re-Is-there-a-particular-reason-why-Divorce-isn-t-included-as-a-relationship-type-tp4679096p4679112.html
> Sent from the GRAMPS - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> https://gramps-project.org


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Re : Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as a relationship type?

jerome
In reply to this post by jerome
Martin,

I am fine with this definition.

But during testing, I saw that 'unmarried' people
will use "husband" and "wife" string whatever MARRIAGE,
DIVORCE or ANNULMENT events!

I rather think on something like "spouse" wording,
which is the choice made on the french translation!

po/fr.po:msgid "unmarried|husband"
po/fr.po-msgstr "le conjoint"
po/fr.po-
--
po/fr.po:msgid "unmarried|wife"
po/fr.po-msgstr "la conjointe"
po/fr.po-
--
po/fr.po:msgid "gender unknown,unmarried|spouse"
po/fr.po-msgstr "le conjoint"
po/fr.po-
--
po/fr.po:msgid "unmarried|ex-husband"
po/fr.po-msgstr "l'ancien conjoint"
po/fr.po-
--
po/fr.po:msgid "unmarried|ex-wife"
po/fr.po-msgstr "l'ancienne conjointe"
po/fr.po-
--
po/fr.po:msgid "gender unknown,unmarried|ex-spouse"
po/fr.po-msgstr "l'ancien conjoint"

I have more problems with the "Civil Union" definition.
e.g., in France, marriages are civil. Religious marriage
are optional.


Jérôme

--------------------------------------------
En date de : Ven 24.2.17, Martnal <[hidden email]> a écrit :

 Objet: Re: [Gramps-users] Re : Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as a relationship type?
 À: [hidden email]
 Date: Vendredi 24 février 2017, 14h13
 
 Jerome,
 'Unmarried' is meant to describe a relationship
 where two people have
 not been through a
 marriage (Like me), but live together.  It is not
 intended to mark the curtailment or end of a
 marriage.  The divorce is a
 life event, not
 a type of relationship.  I suppose the divorce event is
 the
 day (or moment) the decree is issued.
 
 (After GRAMP-ing for a year,
 this is my first attempt to return all the kind
 support I've had over the year.  I hope I
 got it right.  )
 
 MJartin
 
 
 
 -----
 
 
 Martin, SW London
 
 I am using GRAMPS 4.2.3-1 on
 Windows 10.
 
 I am
 researching surnames Loughborough, (London and Hartlepool),
 Watson, (Jarrow and Hartlepool), Ballard and Glassop (E.
 London), Mowbray, Pounder and Bulmer, (all Hartlepool),
 Leggett (Middlesborough and Prescot).
 --
 View this message in context: http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/Re-Is-there-a-particular-reason-why-Divorce-isn-t-included-as-a-relationship-type-tp4679096p4679099.html
 Sent from the GRAMPS - User mailing list
 archive at Nabble.com.
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Check out the vibrant tech community on one of
 the world's most
 engaging tech sites,
 SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
 _______________________________________________
 Gramps-users mailing list
 [hidden email]
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
 https://gramps-project.org
 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Re : Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as a relationship type?

jerome
In reply to this post by jerome
 Martin,
 
 I am fine with this definition.
Just "jump on" this previous post!

Got more problems with the "Civil Union" definition.
 e.g., in France, marriages and unions are civil and no
difference if it is a same-sex relation or not.
Religious marriages are optional, and they are making a difference.

Anyway, we are trying to improve current Family Editor, views and reports[1].
No plan to make a revolution, only try to display existing informations
not always very accessible(s) or limited by generic hard-coded strings.
Just more flexibility and details.

It seems ready for displaying partner and spouse informations
according to family type[2]. So, just need more tests.
e.g., sidebar filter ignored custom relationship types on Families.
It has been fixed.

Some points[1] might be still improved, but the tested ways keep
the current data fields. So, these improvements are rather trying to limit
confusions.

Also, in theory, "Divorce" or whatever string could be added as a
relationship type if the user wants to use it. Relationship calculation
will ignore this custom value but it is possible to use it.


[1] https://github.com/gramps-project/gramps/pull/347/files
[2] https://gramps-project.org/docs/relationship.html
 
 
 Jérôme
 
 --------------------------------------------
 En date de : Ven 24.2.17, Martnal <[hidden email]>
 a écrit :
 
  Objet: Re: [Gramps-users] Re : Is there a particular reason
 why "Divorce" isn't    included as a
 relationship type?
  À: [hidden email]
  Date: Vendredi 24 février 2017, 14h13
 
  Jerome,
  'Unmarried' is meant to describe a relationship
  where two people have
  not been through a
  marriage (Like me), but live together.  It is not
  intended to mark the curtailment or end of a
  marriage.  The divorce is a
  life event, not
  a type of relationship.  I suppose the divorce event is
  the
  day (or moment) the decree is issued.
 
  (After GRAMP-ing for a year,
  this is my first attempt to return all the kind
  support I've had over the year.  I hope I
  got it right.  )
 
  MJartin
 
 
 
  -----
 
 
  Martin, SW London
 
  I am using GRAMPS 4.2.3-1 on
  Windows 10.
 
  I am
  researching surnames Loughborough, (London and
 Hartlepool),
  Watson, (Jarrow and Hartlepool), Ballard and Glassop (E.
  London), Mowbray, Pounder and Bulmer, (all Hartlepool),
  Leggett (Middlesborough and Prescot).
  --
  View this message in context: http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/Re-Is-there-a-particular-reason-why-Divorce-isn-t-included-as-a-relationship-type-tp4679096p4679099.html
  Sent from the GRAMPS - User mailing list
  archive at Nabble.com.
 
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Check out the vibrant tech community on one of
  the world's most
  engaging tech sites,
  SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
  _______________________________________________
  Gramps-users mailing list
  [hidden email]
  https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
  https://gramps-project.org
 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Re : Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as a relationship type?

John W. Kitz-3
In reply to this post by jerome
Jérôme,

On 2017-02-24 12:28, jerome wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
> It is not visible on Family Editor, but code is taking care of divorce
> event.
> e.g.,
> https://github.com/gramps-project/gramps/blob/master/gramps/gen/relationship.py#L1125
>
> You can have some ex-"partner-values".
> https://github.com/gramps-project/gramps/blob/master/gramps/gen/relationship.py#L827
>
> I did not find clear samples on current code, just discover this by
> looking
> at Pull Request #347.
>
>
> Jérôme
>
> --------------------------------------------
> En date de : Lun 26.12.16, John W. Kitz <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
>  Objet: [Gramps-users] Is there a particular reason why "Divorce"
> isn'tincludedas a relationship type?
>  À: [hidden email]
>  Date: Lundi 26 décembre 2016, 0h07
>
>  Hi,
>
>  I've been using Gramps since a couple of days. Consequently
>  have only been
>  able to enter a limited amount of information sofar, but I
>  noticed that
>  relationships can only be given four types, i.e. "Unmarried,
>  Married, Civil
>  Union and Unknown". Personal events on the other hand also
>  include
>  "Divorce".
>
>  Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as
>  a relationship
>  type?
>
>  Another thing that I noticed, which probably is related (no
>  pun intended) to
>  the above is this; when running the data verification tool
>  from the tools
>  menu one of the results I get is "Marriage date but not
>  married", which I
>  guess is caused by the fact that I entered a relationship
>  with a marriage
>  date, but a type of "Unmarried" because the couple in
>  question at some point
>  in time divorced. I included the divorce as a personal event
>  for both people
>  involved, but the relationship type isn't taken from the
>  most recent
>  personal event for both partner in the relationship nor can
>  it be set to a
>  type "Divorced" manually.
>
>  Is there a particular reason why the data verification tool
>  flags this as a
>  warning?
>
>  Regards, Jk.

I'm not sure what to make of your reply, which seems to refer to the
event rather than any type of legal status, e.g. birth (event) -> born
(status), or death (event) -> died (status) or a related status of widow
of so and so, marriage (event) -> married (status), etc.

With that in mind (in a legal sense) an individual can IMHO have more
than one status at any one time, e.g. be married (civil contract of
sorts between two individuals) and separated (living at two different
addresses) at the same time, and there may be other combinations of
one's legal status that may apply to (one and) the same individual(s) at
the same time. Also one doesn't necessarily need to be married (status)
in the legal sense to e.g. be living together and by law have equal
rights as people who are.

While I realize that to some this may seem odd and possibly wrong from a
religious perspective, but that's the law of some lands, hence I
submitted https://gramps-project.org/bugs/view.php?id=9859).

I hope this clarifies my remarks.

Regards, Jk.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Re : Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as a relationship type?

jerome
In reply to this post by jerome
John,

 > I'm not sure what to make of your reply,
> which seems to refer to the
> event rather
> than any type of legal status, e.g. birth (event) -> born
>
> (status), or death (event) -> died
> (status) or a related status of widow
> of so
> and so, marriage (event) -> married (status), etc.
 
> Regards, Jk.

I know that can be confusing. Sorry!

In fact, it is true that the section pointed out is looking
at divorce event but into a family "spouse/partner" section
generated by looking at family.type.

The death event is something else, just annulment and
divorce seem to generate a specific return.

Some proposals like
https://gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=GEPS_001:_Relationship_type_event_link#6_relationship_types
are something else, but this will be a (too) large extension
for my simple experimentation.

So, something is already using this logic on relationship
module - despite not really used - it should be possible
to add some proposals made on GEPS001.


regards,
Jérôme
 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Re : Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as a relationship type?

John W. Kitz-3
Jérôme,

On 2017-02-25 13:19, jerome wrote:

> John,
>
>> I'm not sure what to make of your reply,
>> which seems to refer to the
>> event rather
>> than any type of legal status, e.g. birth (event) -> born
>>
>> (status), or death (event) -> dead or deceased
>> (status) or a related status of widow
>> of so
>> and so, marriage (event) -> married (status), etc.
>
>> Regards, Jk.
>
> I know that can be confusing. Sorry!

No problem.

> In fact, it is true that the section pointed out is looking
> at divorce event but into a family "spouse/partner" section
> generated by looking at family.type.
>
> The death event is something else, just annulment and
> divorce seem to generate a specific return.
>
> Some proposals like
> https://gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=GEPS_001:_Relationship_type_event_link#6_relationship_types
> are something else, but this will be a (too) large extension
> for my simple experimentation.
>
> So, something is already using this logic on relationship
> module - despite not really used - it should be possible
> to add some proposals made on GEPS001.
>
>
> regards,
> Jérôme

I had a look at the text of the GEPS001 Wiki, in particular at the
section which states:

Married : any religeous union
Civil Marriage: a civil legal union with highest legal bonding between
husband and wife
Civil Union: all other civil legal union

and, while I'm by no means an expert on all (legal) matters involving
marriage, etc. nor on GEDCOM, I do find the distinction made in GEPS0001
a bit confusing. As far as I known, and could find written confirmation
for, within the context of present day Dutch legislation the only type
of marriage that has any legal meaning is a civil marriage, see the
following text taken from a website of the Dutch government:

"Religious marriage following a civil marriage
After your marriage or registered partnership ceremony has been
solemnized by the registrar you may [JKi: but don't have to] hold a
religious ceremony in a church or mosque, if you wish. The religious
ceremony may not take place before the civil ceremony [JKi: i.e. the
civil marriage takes precedence over the religious one]."[1]

[1]
"https://www.government.nl/topics/marriage-cohabitation-agreement-registered-partnership/question-and-answer/marriage-or-entering-into-a-registered-partnership"

Regards, Jk.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Re : Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as a relationship type?

enno
In reply to this post by John W. Kitz-3
Hello John,

The simplest answer is that status and type are different things, and a
relationship type refers to the sort of relationship that people once
had. Divorce as an event is not a relationship, but rather the end of
it, and divorced is a status, not a type.

When you take the definitions like this, and software is always based on
formal definitions, a relation type 'married' as opposed to other types,
does not end with a divorce. A divorce creates a new status called
'divorced' but that does not not mean that the relationship type itself
is changed.

I set the relationship between my parents and most other couples in my
tree to married, because that's what they were. Divorces, separations,
or deaths, don't change the relationship types that once were.

Note that this is how software models the world, and changing the model
may create inconsistencies, so in general such changes need to be
avoided. There is a formal meaning that you may not agree to, but that
doesn't change the intended meaning itself.

The model is biased, because the people that created it were biased,
meaning that they had their own interpretations of the meaning of
marriage, which is quite simplistic, I think, but exists nevertheless.
We often have to live with that, because the consequences of changing
meaning afterwards are too high.

regards,

Enno


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Re : Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as a relationship type?

Dave Scheipers
In reply to this post by John W. Kitz-3
This entire thread baffles me. There are events for Marriages, Civil Unions, divorces and annulments.... These are all events with dates and places.

As far as I've seen, the relationship type has no bearing on anything I do. Yes, it's a nice visual cue and a nice search criteria, but it doesn't affect any reports (as far as I've encountered, I could be wrong).

Gramps allows you to add other Relationship types. Just like you can add custom events. So if you need to alter the relationship after a divorce or death.... you can.

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 9:14 AM, John W. Kitz <[hidden email]> wrote:
Jérôme,

On 2017-02-25 13:19, jerome wrote:
> John,
>
>> I'm not sure what to make of your reply,
>> which seems to refer to the
>> event rather
>> than any type of legal status, e.g. birth (event) -> born
>>
>> (status), or death (event) -> dead or deceased
>> (status) or a related status of widow
>> of so
>> and so, marriage (event) -> married (status), etc.
>
>> Regards, Jk.
>
> I know that can be confusing. Sorry!

No problem.

> In fact, it is true that the section pointed out is looking
> at divorce event but into a family "spouse/partner" section
> generated by looking at family.type.
>
> The death event is something else, just annulment and
> divorce seem to generate a specific return.
>
> Some proposals like
> https://gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=GEPS_001:_Relationship_type_event_link#6_relationship_types
> are something else, but this will be a (too) large extension
> for my simple experimentation.
>
> So, something is already using this logic on relationship
> module - despite not really used - it should be possible
> to add some proposals made on GEPS001.
>
>
> regards,
> Jérôme

I had a look at the text of the GEPS001 Wiki, in particular at the
section which states:

Married : any religeous union
Civil Marriage: a civil legal union with highest legal bonding between
husband and wife
Civil Union: all other civil legal union

and, while I'm by no means an expert on all (legal) matters involving
marriage, etc. nor on GEDCOM, I do find the distinction made in GEPS0001
a bit confusing. As far as I known, and could find written confirmation
for, within the context of present day Dutch legislation the only type
of marriage that has any legal meaning is a civil marriage, see the
following text taken from a website of the Dutch government:

"Religious marriage following a civil marriage
After your marriage or registered partnership ceremony has been
solemnized by the registrar you may [JKi: but don't have to] hold a
religious ceremony in a church or mosque, if you wish. The religious
ceremony may not take place before the civil ceremony [JKi: i.e. the
civil marriage takes precedence over the religious one]."[1]

[1]
"https://www.government.nl/topics/marriage-cohabitation-agreement-registered-partnership/question-and-answer/marriage-or-entering-into-a-registered-partnership"

Regards, Jk.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Re : Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as a relationship type?

John W. Kitz-3
In reply to this post by enno
Enno,

On 2017-02-25 16:06, Enno Borgsteede wrote:
> Hello John,
>
> The simplest answer is that status and type are different things, and a
> relationship type refers to the sort of relationship that people once
> had. Divorce as an event is not a relationship, but rather the end of
> it, and divorced is a status, not a type.

It looks like we're more or less stating the same (albeit in different
words) in that events are cause for some individual civil status[1] or
the change thereof, e.g.:

o Birth (event) -> Born (status);
o Marriage (event) -> Married (status);
o Separation (event) -> Separated (status);
o Divorce (event) -> Divorced [from so and so] (status);
o Death (event) -> Died or Deceased (status) and related Widow or
Widower [from so and so] (status).

> When you take the definitions like this, and software is always based
> on
> formal definitions, a relation type 'married' as opposed to other
> types,
> does not end with a divorce. A divorce creates a new status called
> 'divorced' but that does not not mean that the relationship type itself
> is changed.
>
> I set the relationship between my parents and most other couples in my
> tree to married, because that's what they were. Divorces, separations,
> or deaths, don't change the relationship types that once were.

No, but events such as divorce and death do, at least IMHO.

When a divorce (event) becomes effective or when someone dies (event),
the civil status of the former or remaining spouse(s) changes either
permanently or temporarily e.g. when she, he or they remarry at some
later point in time either to each other or to one or more new spouses.

If the last event, such as e.g. a divorce or passing of one's partner,
that someone was part of, through e.g. a marriage, the last remaining
relationship (as well as the related individual civil status if you
will) can IMHO never be married, but is either divorced or widowed.
Appropriate related individual civil statuses seem to be divorcée (she),
divorcé (he), widow (she) or widower (he) of so and so.

Please also consider that the only period in one's life that one is
unmarried is from the date that one is born to the date of one's first
marriage. However long one's first marriage may last, one can never be
unmarried again since one has been married (at least once), yet at the
same time there may be times in one's life, after that first marriage
ended, during which one is not married.

> Note that this is how software models the world, and changing the model
> may create inconsistencies, so in general such changes need to be
> avoided. There is a formal meaning that you may not agree to, but that
> doesn't change the intended meaning itself.
>
> The model is biased, because the people that created it were biased,
> meaning that they had their own interpretations of the meaning of
> marriage, which is quite simplistic, I think, but exists nevertheless.
> We often have to live with that, because the consequences of changing
> meaning afterwards are too high.

This is an area related to this topic that we IMHO should best not
explore, at least not on this list. Also please don't take any of my
remarks on this topic as negative persé, but rather as a useful
discussion about the pro's and con's related to some areas of the use of
Gramps that one may take ideas from for one's own use of the software
(as I have already done several times) or maybe its future development.

>
> regards,
>
> Enno

[1] http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/legislation/dcctitle044.htm

Thanks and regards, Jk.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Re : Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as a relationship type?

enno
Hello John,

> On 2017-02-25 16:06, Enno Borgsteede wrote:
>> Hello John,
>>
>> The simplest answer is that status and type are different things, and a
>> relationship type refers to the sort of relationship that people once
>> had. Divorce as an event is not a relationship, but rather the end of
>> it, and divorced is a status, not a type.
>
> It looks like we're more or less stating the same (albeit in different
> words) in that events are cause for some individual civil status[1] or
> the change thereof, e.g.:
>
> o Birth (event) -> Born (status);
> o Marriage (event) -> Married (status);
> o Separation (event) -> Separated (status);
> o Divorce (event) -> Divorced [from so and so] (status);
> o Death (event) -> Died or Deceased (status) and related Widow or
> Widower [from so and so] (status).
No we don't. I wrote that status and type are different things. They are
different in my mind, and in all the software that I work with, or maintain.

>
>> When you take the definitions like this, and software is always based on
>> formal definitions, a relation type 'married' as opposed to other types,
>> does not end with a divorce. A divorce creates a new status called
>> 'divorced' but that does not not mean that the relationship type itself
>> is changed.
>>
>> I set the relationship between my parents and most other couples in my
>> tree to married, because that's what they were. Divorces, separations,
>> or deaths, don't change the relationship types that once were.
>
> No, but events such as divorce and death do, at least IMHO.
In yours, yes, but not in mine. For me, a type is like the brand or
model of a car. If I were to register my car history, I can write that I
once had a Volvo 440. This car was recycled quite a while ago, but in my
car history, it's still a Volvo.

When I think of relationships, I see the type of relationship between my
parents (marriage) as an eternal fact, which means that they were
married, just like the first car that I owned was a Volvo. The marriage
ended when my father died, in 2004, but the type of relationship was a
marriage for most of the time, and until the end, i.e. my father's
death. And on a similar scale, I see my own relationship to my father as
an eternal one too. I have sources that suggest that I'm his son, and
strong reasons to believe that it is a biological relation too, given
similarities in looks and behavior, including our autism.

>
> When a divorce (event) becomes effective or when someone dies (event),
> the civil status of the former or remaining spouse(s) changes either
> permanently or temporarily e.g. when she, he or they remarry at some
> later point in time either to each other or to one or more new spouses.
That is indeed true for the status, but the relationship itself, which
is a registered fact from the past, is still of type marriage, meaning
that they were registered spouses when we were born, and stayed that way
until the end, i.e. when my father passed away.

>
> If the last event, such as e.g. a divorce or passing of one's partner,
> that someone was part of, through e.g. a marriage, the last remaining
> relationship (as well as the related individual civil status if you
> will) can IMHO never be married, but is either divorced or widowed.
> Appropriate related individual civil statuses seem to be divorcée
> (she), divorcé (he), widow (she) or widower (he) of so and so.
I see what you mean, but in my and fellow Gramps developers' opinion,
the type applies to when the relationship existed, and the last
remaining relationship is married. Divorced or widowed is not a type of
relationship, but just the current civil status of my mother, widowed, I
mean.

When my former car was recycled, it formally didn't stop being a Volvo.
The whole car disappeared, and turned into pieces of glass, plastic, and
metal, just like my father has probably returned to dust, sort of. He's
still my biological father though, relationship wise, and he still has a
name in history.

>
> Please also consider that the only period in one's life that one is
> unmarried is from the date that one is born to the date of one's first
> marriage. However long one's first marriage may last, one can never be
> unmarried again since one has been married (at least once), yet at the
> same time there may be times in one's life, after that first marriage
> ended, during which one is not married.
I get that, but you are ignoring the fact that the relationship type is
not an attribute of a person, but an attribute or the (past)
relationship itself. And that type was a marriage when it ended, by
death in my father's case, so the last registered type for the
relationship is marriage, period.

My mother's status is widowed, and could have been married, again, but
it isn't. But that is a different thing. And I think that you are
comparing apples and pears.
>
> This is an area related to this topic that we IMHO should best not
> explore, at least not on this list. Also please don't take any of my
> remarks on this topic as negative persé, but rather as a useful
> discussion about the pro's and con's related to some areas of the use
> of Gramps that one may take ideas from for one's own use of the
> software (as I have already done several times) or maybe its future
> development.
As a professional software engineer, and user, I want software to be
stable, in the sense that the meaning of things, i.e. data, menus, etc.,
doesn't change, unless developers and users agree that there is an error
that needs to be corrected, or an inconsistency. And I don't see an
inconsistency here, just like I don't see an inconsistency in
registering the brand and model of a car that does not exist anymore.
They are historical facts, just like the marriage between my parents is
a historical fact.

I see absolutely no reason to change the meaning of the relationship
type, because it makes Gramps unreliable, and it is useless too, because
the type that you ask for is redundant. The civil status of my mother
can be derived from the events that I registered, so there's no need to
register it twice.

You may ask why the relationship type can be specified then, and I think
there are two reasons for that. One is that, without it, all
relationships between men and women would be considered marriages, which
is nonsense. Children have been born outside marriages for ages, so you
need a way to register that as a researcher, no matter what the LDS
thinks of that. The other is that, if you find a birth record, you often
see an indication of the relationship type, even though you have no
direct proof of a marriage yet. You can then register that the birth
source says that the parents were married, without creating a fake
marriage event. In that case, the relationship is a registered fact,
which does not necessarily imply that it's true. It's a registered fact
nevertheless, and registering that is a lot easier than creating a
marriage event without date and place, or direct source.

Note that this also probably has a history. Once fields are introduced
in a program, you can not remove them without alienating users, so you
have to leave them in, even if you later think that they're partly
redundant, as the relationship type partly is. It can be derived from
events, when they are there, but it is a time saver when you don't have
the event sources yet, and for some people, you may never get a chance
to get those anyway.

My answer will hence stay as it was. To me it makes no sense to change
anything, because the current code is based on what I think is valid
reasoning, and once made, the choice can't be changed without serious
consequences for your fellow users.

regards,

Enno


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Re : Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as a relationship type?

Dave Scheipers
Hi Enno,

Maybe you can help by telling us where the Relationship Type affects others things we do with Gramps. Where does it come into play? Would adding a custom type cause something irregular to happen? Does it show up in reports are cause the relationship to not show up based upon what the type says, or if were customized?

Bottom line... Just how important is the Relationship Type.

Dave

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Enno Borgsteede <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello John,
> On 2017-02-25 16:06, Enno Borgsteede wrote:
>> Hello John,
>>
>> The simplest answer is that status and type are different things, and a
>> relationship type refers to the sort of relationship that people once
>> had. Divorce as an event is not a relationship, but rather the end of
>> it, and divorced is a status, not a type.
>
> It looks like we're more or less stating the same (albeit in different
> words) in that events are cause for some individual civil status[1] or
> the change thereof, e.g.:
>
> o Birth (event) -> Born (status);
> o Marriage (event) -> Married (status);
> o Separation (event) -> Separated (status);
> o Divorce (event) -> Divorced [from so and so] (status);
> o Death (event) -> Died or Deceased (status) and related Widow or
> Widower [from so and so] (status).
No we don't. I wrote that status and type are different things. They are
different in my mind, and in all the software that I work with, or maintain.

>
>> When you take the definitions like this, and software is always based on
>> formal definitions, a relation type 'married' as opposed to other types,
>> does not end with a divorce. A divorce creates a new status called
>> 'divorced' but that does not not mean that the relationship type itself
>> is changed.
>>
>> I set the relationship between my parents and most other couples in my
>> tree to married, because that's what they were. Divorces, separations,
>> or deaths, don't change the relationship types that once were.
>
> No, but events such as divorce and death do, at least IMHO.
In yours, yes, but not in mine. For me, a type is like the brand or
model of a car. If I were to register my car history, I can write that I
once had a Volvo 440. This car was recycled quite a while ago, but in my
car history, it's still a Volvo.

When I think of relationships, I see the type of relationship between my
parents (marriage) as an eternal fact, which means that they were
married, just like the first car that I owned was a Volvo. The marriage
ended when my father died, in 2004, but the type of relationship was a
marriage for most of the time, and until the end, i.e. my father's
death. And on a similar scale, I see my own relationship to my father as
an eternal one too. I have sources that suggest that I'm his son, and
strong reasons to believe that it is a biological relation too, given
similarities in looks and behavior, including our autism.

>
> When a divorce (event) becomes effective or when someone dies (event),
> the civil status of the former or remaining spouse(s) changes either
> permanently or temporarily e.g. when she, he or they remarry at some
> later point in time either to each other or to one or more new spouses.
That is indeed true for the status, but the relationship itself, which
is a registered fact from the past, is still of type marriage, meaning
that they were registered spouses when we were born, and stayed that way
until the end, i.e. when my father passed away.

>
> If the last event, such as e.g. a divorce or passing of one's partner,
> that someone was part of, through e.g. a marriage, the last remaining
> relationship (as well as the related individual civil status if you
> will) can IMHO never be married, but is either divorced or widowed.
> Appropriate related individual civil statuses seem to be divorcée
> (she), divorcé (he), widow (she) or widower (he) of so and so.
I see what you mean, but in my and fellow Gramps developers' opinion,
the type applies to when the relationship existed, and the last
remaining relationship is married. Divorced or widowed is not a type of
relationship, but just the current civil status of my mother, widowed, I
mean.

When my former car was recycled, it formally didn't stop being a Volvo.
The whole car disappeared, and turned into pieces of glass, plastic, and
metal, just like my father has probably returned to dust, sort of. He's
still my biological father though, relationship wise, and he still has a
name in history.

>
> Please also consider that the only period in one's life that one is
> unmarried is from the date that one is born to the date of one's first
> marriage. However long one's first marriage may last, one can never be
> unmarried again since one has been married (at least once), yet at the
> same time there may be times in one's life, after that first marriage
> ended, during which one is not married.
I get that, but you are ignoring the fact that the relationship type is
not an attribute of a person, but an attribute or the (past)
relationship itself. And that type was a marriage when it ended, by
death in my father's case, so the last registered type for the
relationship is marriage, period.

My mother's status is widowed, and could have been married, again, but
it isn't. But that is a different thing. And I think that you are
comparing apples and pears.
>
> This is an area related to this topic that we IMHO should best not
> explore, at least not on this list. Also please don't take any of my
> remarks on this topic as negative persé, but rather as a useful
> discussion about the pro's and con's related to some areas of the use
> of Gramps that one may take ideas from for one's own use of the
> software (as I have already done several times) or maybe its future
> development.
As a professional software engineer, and user, I want software to be
stable, in the sense that the meaning of things, i.e. data, menus, etc.,
doesn't change, unless developers and users agree that there is an error
that needs to be corrected, or an inconsistency. And I don't see an
inconsistency here, just like I don't see an inconsistency in
registering the brand and model of a car that does not exist anymore.
They are historical facts, just like the marriage between my parents is
a historical fact.

I see absolutely no reason to change the meaning of the relationship
type, because it makes Gramps unreliable, and it is useless too, because
the type that you ask for is redundant. The civil status of my mother
can be derived from the events that I registered, so there's no need to
register it twice.

You may ask why the relationship type can be specified then, and I think
there are two reasons for that. One is that, without it, all
relationships between men and women would be considered marriages, which
is nonsense. Children have been born outside marriages for ages, so you
need a way to register that as a researcher, no matter what the LDS
thinks of that. The other is that, if you find a birth record, you often
see an indication of the relationship type, even though you have no
direct proof of a marriage yet. You can then register that the birth
source says that the parents were married, without creating a fake
marriage event. In that case, the relationship is a registered fact,
which does not necessarily imply that it's true. It's a registered fact
nevertheless, and registering that is a lot easier than creating a
marriage event without date and place, or direct source.

Note that this also probably has a history. Once fields are introduced
in a program, you can not remove them without alienating users, so you
have to leave them in, even if you later think that they're partly
redundant, as the relationship type partly is. It can be derived from
events, when they are there, but it is a time saver when you don't have
the event sources yet, and for some people, you may never get a chance
to get those anyway.

My answer will hence stay as it was. To me it makes no sense to change
anything, because the current code is based on what I think is valid
reasoning, and once made, the choice can't be changed without serious
consequences for your fellow users.

regards,

Enno


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Re : Is there a particular reason why "Divorce" isn't included as a relationship type?

enno
Hello Dave,

> Maybe you can help by telling us where the Relationship Type affects
> others things we do with Gramps. Where does it come into play?
I have no idea how or where it is used in reports, but I personally use
it for two things:

1. When I find the word "wife" in a birth record, or "widow" or
"widower" in a death record, I conclude that the persons referred too
were married. Saving that conclusion in the relationship is much quicker
than creating a fake marriage event.

2. When I find a birth record where no father is mentioned, or one for
which I know that the father is not the biological one, I create a
relationship between the biological parents with type "not married".
This can only be done when I have reliable hearsay about the real
father, of course.

In situation 1, I know that I may have to look for a marriage record,
and when I can register that, the relationship type is sort of overruled
by the marriage event, which can be followed by a divorce record too,
when available. I leave the relationship type to "married" then still,
because in my and Gramps' logic, that's what the relationship was. A
divorce is not a relationship type.

In situation 2, I use the "not married" relationship type as an
indicator that there is not much need to look for a marriage record,
although there may be one. But if there is none, having the "not
married" relationship type is much easier than a fake "not married"
marriage event, which will lead to very awkward texts in reports.

> Would adding a custom type cause something irregular to happen?
In my mind, yes. Creating a divorced relationship type is inconsistent
with the software design, and creating a custom type also leads to
problems when a language border is crossed. That's why I will always try
to avoid custom types myself.

> Does it show up in reports are cause the relationship to not show up
> based upon what the type says, or if were customized?
I sincerely hope that setting the relationship type to "not married"
will suppress the M word in any report that I may create some time. I
want Gramps to be accurate, and not report marriages because some fool
thought that all people were or should be married.

> Bottom line... Just how important is the Relationship Type.
See above. I need it to record conclusions about the nature or a
relationship, especially when people were not married, and there is no
other way to prove a non event. I also use it for the temporary
conclusion or reminder that a marriage record should be found some time.

Fake events look bad in reports, so Gramps should prevent them where
possible.

regards,

Enno


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
12
Loading...