Search for persons having baptism off for more than 6 month

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

Search for persons having baptism off for more than 6 month

Oliver Lehmann
Hi,

I've changed the events gramps will provide me to fill in when  
creating a new event from

Birth
Death

to

Religion
Birth
Baptism
Death
Burial

It happens now and then that I have a birth data and need to enter a  
death date before I found out when the person was baptismed. I have to  
take care to change "Baptism" to "Death" and found out that it happend  
I forgot to switch it. So I now got for example Baptism dates which  
are 75 years after the birth date. It might be OK in life to have such  
circumstances but I'd like to revise such things.


Is there a way to get all baptism events which are off more than lets  
say 3 month from the corresponding birth event? "Validate data" seems  
not to provide such check.

Best regards,
Oliver


--
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
|

Objectification of the Gramps glossary

GRAMPS - User mailing list
I need some input so I don't mangle a wiki page efit.

One of the Gramps glossary Terms currently re-uses a word from the Term when defining itself. Unfortunity, that word is one of the more complex concepts of database design. Repeating the word doesn't add clarity.  

The word 'Object' can imply different things if it is tech jargon without context. (object-oriented programming & object-relational dbms) Is a object-relational database management system applicable to a Python app layered on SQLite or BSDDB backend?

There's some added ambiguity with with the plain language definition. (I object! The object that fell on Newton's head was an object lesson.)

But, since a Glossary term should be define in plain language rather than tech jargon, I'd appreciate some help sorting it out.

"primary object
Primary objects are the top level objects. They contain a hierarchy of secondary objects, and can be referenced by other primary or secondary objects. "

Perhaps the glossary should have an Object item? 

Object - a database core concept of relating a set of data by assembling its elements in a well-defined & identifiable pattern. The pattern is often called a structure or framework.  Each dataset stored with the pattern is an object.  This framework used to store or reference data.


--
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
|

Re: Objectification of the Gramps glossary

Nick Hall
On 28/08/2019 18:17, Emyoulation--- via Gramps-users wrote:
"primary object
Primary objects are the top level objects. They contain a hierarchy of secondary objects, and can be referenced by other primary or secondary objects. "

Perhaps the glossary should have an Object item? 

Probably.

In Gramps we use the term Object in the object-oriented programming sense.

An object contains the attributes of a concept and methods to access or manipulate these attributes.  The attributes of an object can contain other objects.

We refer to the ten top-level objects that are stored separately in the database as Primary Objects.  We refer to objects contained within Primary Objects as Secondary Objects.

For example, a person is a Primary Object.  Each person is stored as a separate entry within the database.  A person can contain a list of event references.  These references are Secondary Objects which are stored within the Primary Object.  Each event reference points to an Event which is another Primary Object.  In this way an event can be shared between multiple people.

The raw data that represents an Object in the database is hierarchical, not relational, in nature.  It is stored as such even in the SQLite database backend which is a relational database.

I hope this explanation helps.


Nick.




--
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
|

Re: Objectification of the Gramps glossary

GRAMPS - User mailing list
Thank you. It does help.

Good stuff. I'll try to abstract that down into something bite-sized for a compact glossary. The full length version probably deserves its own page.

-Brian

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:58, Nick Hall


--
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
|

Re: Objectification of the Gramps glossary

Bryan S
In reply to this post by GRAMPS - User mailing list
Good luck with this...an age-old dilemma that is yet to be resolved.

When UNIX (progenitor of LINUX) began, I remember numerous articles addressing exactly this problem. No solution has been found and only a very few practically useful suggestions have been developed.
In a simplistic way I might suggest a WIKI article about the UNIX v.7 script utility AWK.
No need to study the article, its merely an example.


As you can see, AWK changed with time yet retained enough identity to be recognized in later years.
I particularly like the informal naming conventions of UNIX/LINUX. The mnemonic needs to mean something and cannot just be a cute something-or-other
that is named after some addlebrained nerd's long deceased pet dog for instance.

If you review man-pages you can see a system of naming.


My suggestion for the problem presented here is;
1. Keep all non-Gramps (industry standard) names, such as 'object', in place in the industry db references
2. If there are instances specific to GRAMPS,
gpobj => an instance of a GRAMPS primary object
gsobj => an instance of a GRAMPS secondary object.
3. Of course, the Glossary would need to be very very clear that the names you chose relates strictly to GRAMPS.

No need to re-invent the wheel...again...and again...


Thx
Bryan


On Wed, 2019-08-28 at 17:17 +0000, Emyoulation--- via Gramps-users wrote:
I need some input so I don't mangle a wiki page efit.

One of the Gramps glossary Terms currently re-uses a word from the Term when defining itself. Unfortunity, that word is one of the more complex concepts of database design. Repeating the word doesn't add clarity.  

The word 'Object' can imply different things if it is tech jargon without context. (object-oriented programming & object-relational dbms) Is a object-relational database management system applicable to a Python app layered on SQLite or BSDDB backend?

There's some added ambiguity with with the plain language definition. (I object! The object that fell on Newton's head was an object lesson.)

But, since a Glossary term should be define in plain language rather than tech jargon, I'd appreciate some help sorting it out.

"primary object
Primary objects are the top level objects. They contain a hierarchy of secondary objects, and can be referenced by other primary or secondary objects. "

Perhaps the glossary should have an Object item? 

Object - a database core concept of relating a set of data by assembling its elements in a well-defined & identifiable pattern. The pattern is often called a structure or framework.  Each dataset stored with the pattern is an object.  This framework used to store or reference data.


--
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
|

Re: Objectification of the Gramps glossary

GRAMPS - User mailing list
Hey... you know what they say... there's no horse so dead that you can't beat it a little more.

-Brian

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 17:17, Bryan S
Good luck with this...an age-old dilemma that is yet to be resolved.

When UNIX (progenitor of LINUX) began, I remember numerous articles addressing exactly this problem. No solution has been found and only a very few practically useful suggestions have been developed.
In a simplistic way I might suggest a WIKI article about the UNIX v.7 script utility AWK.
No need to study the article, its merely an example.


As you can see, AWK changed with time yet retained enough identity to be recognized in later years.
I particularly like the informal naming conventions of UNIX/LINUX. The mnemonic needs to mean something and cannot just be a cute something-or-other
that is named after some addlebrained nerd's long deceased pet dog for instance.

If you review man-pages you can see a system of naming.


My suggestion for the problem presented here is;
1. Keep all non-Gramps (industry standard) names, such as 'object', in place in the industry db references
2. If there are instances specific to GRAMPS,
gpobj => an instance of a GRAMPS primary object
gsobj => an instance of a GRAMPS secondary object.
3. Of course, the Glossary would need to be very very clear that the names you chose relates strictly to GRAMPS.

No need to re-invent the wheel...again...and again...


Thx
Bryan


On Wed, 2019-08-28 at 17:17 +0000, Emyoulation--- via Gramps-users wrote:
I need some input so I don't mangle a wiki page efit.

One of the Gramps glossary Terms currently re-uses a word from the Term when defining itself. Unfortunity, that word is one of the more complex concepts of database design. Repeating the word doesn't add clarity.  

The word 'Object' can imply different things if it is tech jargon without context. (object-oriented programming & object-relational dbms) Is a object-relational database management system applicable to a Python app layered on SQLite or BSDDB backend?

There's some added ambiguity with with the plain language definition. (I object! The object that fell on Newton's head was an object lesson.)

But, since a Glossary term should be define in plain language rather than tech jargon, I'd appreciate some help sorting it out.

"primary object
Primary objects are the top level objects. They contain a hierarchy of secondary objects, and can be referenced by other primary or secondary objects. "

Perhaps the glossary should have an Object item? 

Object - a database core concept of relating a set of data by assembling its elements in a well-defined & identifiable pattern. The pattern is often called a structure or framework.  Each dataset stored with the pattern is an object.  This framework used to store or reference data.


--
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
|

Re: Objectification of the Gramps glossary

Bryan S
Haha...good one!


On Wed, 2019-08-28 at 22:20 +0000, [hidden email] wrote:
Hey... you know what they say... there's no horse so dead that you can't beat it a little more.

-Brian

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 17:17, Bryan S
Good luck with this...an age-old dilemma that is yet to be resolved.

When UNIX (progenitor of LINUX) began, I remember numerous articles addressing exactly this problem. No solution has been found and only a very few practically useful suggestions have been developed.
In a simplistic way I might suggest a WIKI article about the UNIX v.7 script utility AWK.
No need to study the article, its merely an example.


As you can see, AWK changed with time yet retained enough identity to be recognized in later years.
I particularly like the informal naming conventions of UNIX/LINUX. The mnemonic needs to mean something and cannot just be a cute something-or-other
that is named after some addlebrained nerd's long deceased pet dog for instance.

If you review man-pages you can see a system of naming.


My suggestion for the problem presented here is;
1. Keep all non-Gramps (industry standard) names, such as 'object', in place in the industry db references
2. If there are instances specific to GRAMPS,
gpobj => an instance of a GRAMPS primary object
gsobj => an instance of a GRAMPS secondary object.
3. Of course, the Glossary would need to be very very clear that the names you chose relates strictly to GRAMPS.

No need to re-invent the wheel...again...and again...


Thx
Bryan


On Wed, 2019-08-28 at 17:17 +0000, Emyoulation--- via Gramps-users wrote:
I need some input so I don't mangle a wiki page efit.

One of the Gramps glossary Terms currently re-uses a word from the Term when defining itself. Unfortunity, that word is one of the more complex concepts of database design. Repeating the word doesn't add clarity.  

The word 'Object' can imply different things if it is tech jargon without context. (object-oriented programming & object-relational dbms) Is a object-relational database management system applicable to a Python app layered on SQLite or BSDDB backend?

There's some added ambiguity with with the plain language definition. (I object! The object that fell on Newton's head was an object lesson.)

But, since a Glossary term should be define in plain language rather than tech jargon, I'd appreciate some help sorting it out.

"primary object
Primary objects are the top level objects. They contain a hierarchy of secondary objects, and can be referenced by other primary or secondary objects. "

Perhaps the glossary should have an Object item? 

Object - a database core concept of relating a set of data by assembling its elements in a well-defined & identifiable pattern. The pattern is often called a structure or framework.  Each dataset stored with the pattern is an object.  This framework used to store or reference data.


--
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org