Specific GEDCOM scenario

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

Specific GEDCOM scenario

victorengel
This is not a Gramps-specific question, but I believe there are developers here who are familiar with how GEDCOM files work, so I'm asking a question related to that here. If you know of a better group to ask the question, let me know.

Here is the scenario.

Consider 3 people. Let's call them H, W, and C. There are three INDI records, one for each person. There are 2 family records. C is a child in both. H is husband in one, and W is wife in the other. H and W are not in the same family record. This comes from ancestry.com where there is a subfield called _REL that defines the relationship, and in both cases it is Natural.

It sure seems to me that this should be a single family. Does the Gramps interface that imports GED files handle this situation? If so, how is it handled? I think on Ancestry.com the only way to fix it is by going to the H record and adding W as a spouse or going to the W record and adding H as a husband, since H and W are already C's parents.

Or maybe this is a legitimate scenario? I would think not, since both relationships are Natural.

Victor


_______________________________________________
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: Specific GEDCOM scenario

prculley
It sounds like someone trying to describe a custody arrangement after a divorce. In theory there should be another family, perhaps with a short-term marriage or not married relationship, with the child in a birth relationship to each parent.

But neither Gramps nor ancestry.com would enforce any such thing oh, so it's up to the author to put it in place.

Gramps is certainly capable of holding such a relationship as you have described. There is always a question as to whether or not the non-standard output from ancestry.com (_REL) will be picked up properly however.
Paul C.


On Fri, Feb 15, 2019, 6:38 PM Victor Engel <[hidden email] wrote:
This is not a Gramps-specific question, but I believe there are developers here who are familiar with how GEDCOM files work, so I'm asking a question related to that here. If you know of a better group to ask the question, let me know.

Here is the scenario.

Consider 3 people. Let's call them H, W, and C. There are three INDI records, one for each person. There are 2 family records. C is a child in both. H is husband in one, and W is wife in the other. H and W are not in the same family record. This comes from ancestry.com where there is a subfield called _REL that defines the relationship, and in both cases it is Natural.

It sure seems to me that this should be a single family. Does the Gramps interface that imports GED files handle this situation? If so, how is it handled? I think on Ancestry.com the only way to fix it is by going to the H record and adding W as a spouse or going to the W record and adding H as a husband, since H and W are already C's parents.

Or maybe this is a legitimate scenario? I would think not, since both relationships are Natural.

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


_______________________________________________
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: Specific GEDCOM scenario

Ron Johnson

But how could there not be a FAMI record associating H & W?  No need for a Marriage event, but they are -- in the strict lineage-linked definition -- a "family" unit, even if C was the product of a one-night stand.

Or is Ancestry bending the expected GEDCOM rules by using _REL?

On 2/15/19 8:05 PM, Paul Culley wrote:
It sounds like someone trying to describe a custody arrangement after a divorce. In theory there should be another family, perhaps with a short-term marriage or not married relationship, with the child in a birth relationship to each parent.

But neither Gramps nor ancestry.com would enforce any such thing oh, so it's up to the author to put it in place.

Gramps is certainly capable of holding such a relationship as you have described. There is always a question as to whether or not the non-standard output from ancestry.com (_REL) will be picked up properly however.
Paul C.


On Fri, Feb 15, 2019, 6:38 PM Victor Engel <[hidden email] wrote:
This is not a Gramps-specific question, but I believe there are developers here who are familiar with how GEDCOM files work, so I'm asking a question related to that here. If you know of a better group to ask the question, let me know.

Here is the scenario.

Consider 3 people. Let's call them H, W, and C. There are three INDI records, one for each person. There are 2 family records. C is a child in both. H is husband in one, and W is wife in the other. H and W are not in the same family record. This comes from ancestry.com where there is a subfield called _REL that defines the relationship, and in both cases it is Natural.

It sure seems to me that this should be a single family. Does the Gramps interface that imports GED files handle this situation? If so, how is it handled? I think on Ancestry.com the only way to fix it is by going to the H record and adding W as a spouse or going to the W record and adding H as a husband, since H and W are already C's parents.

Or maybe this is a legitimate scenario? I would think not, since both relationships are Natural.

Victor

--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.


_______________________________________________
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: Specific GEDCOM scenario

GRAMPS - User mailing list
In reply to this post by prculley
Artificial insemination with a sperm donor would have the separate relationships you've outlined. 

The mother and father have no relationship with one another. Putting to them in the same family would be misleading since the Relationship Type choices are limited to: Married, Unmarried, Civil Union, or Unknown.

I also would not be comfortable putting victims of rape in the same family with the victimizers.


On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 20:07, Paul Culley
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org


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

Untitled Download Attachment
Untitled (268 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Specific GEDCOM scenario

Ron Johnson

The situations you described are Unmarried, and they do have a relationship with each other: maybe it's impersonal, and maybe (definitely) it's an evil relationship, and possibly very short term, but it's still a relationship.

Too bad there's not an "Other" type.

On 2/15/19 9:03 PM, Emyoulation--- via Gramps-users wrote:
Artificial insemination with a sperm donor would have the separate relationships you've outlined. 

The mother and father have no relationship with one another. Putting to them in the same family would be misleading since the Relationship Type choices are limited to: Married, Unmarried, Civil Union, or Unknown.

I also would not be comfortable putting victims of rape in the same family with the victimizers.


On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 20:07, Paul Culley


--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.


_______________________________________________
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: Specific GEDCOM scenario

GRAMPS - User mailing list
The data chunk is Gramps is a "Family" not a "Relationship". Unmarried also describes long-term couple cohabitating (or living separately) without benefit of Marriage or Civil Union. (Or common law marriage or domestic partnership or...)

Sperm donor and recipient using a sperm bank are often anonymous in both directions. There is no Family and, in that case, no relationships between DNA contributors.

As for "Other", as with most pull-down menus in Gramps, you can define a custion Relationship Type simply by typing a new one.  However, if it gets exported/imported into another program, those niceties would be discarded and the individuals are suddenly in an 'unknown' Relationship again.


On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 21:15, Ron Johnson
The situations you described are Unmarried, and they do have a relationship with each other: maybe it's impersonal, and maybe (definitely) it's an evil relationship, and possibly very short term, but it's still a relationship.
Too bad there's not an "Other" type.
On 2/15/19 9:03 PM, Emyoulation--- via Gramps-users wrote:
Artificial insemination with a sperm donor would have the separate relationships you've outlined. 
The mother and father have no relationship with one another. Putting to them in the same family would be misleading since the Relationship Type choices are limited to: Married, Unmarried, Civil Union, or Unknown.
I also would not be comfortable putting victims of rape in the same family with the victimizers.


_______________________________________________
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: Specific GEDCOM scenario

victorengel
In reply to this post by Ron Johnson
I don't think it's an ancestry way of doing things. It's a glitch. I suppose I should add a little background. I'm writing my own application to handle things that are specific to Norwegian names and families. My requirements don't seem to be able to be met by GEDCOM 5.5.x using standard tags, and even if they were, the files produced do not use them.

I can imagine one scenario on ancestry that could cause this scenario: Person C was created in someone's tree with a relationship with H. A duplicate C was created with a relationship to W. Upon realizing there was a duplicate, the two C records were merged. Without an event connecting H and W, I can see how two family records could be retained.

Victor

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 8:51 PM Ron Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

But how could there not be a FAMI record associating H & W?  No need for a Marriage event, but they are -- in the strict lineage-linked definition -- a "family" unit, even if C was the product of a one-night stand.

Or is Ancestry bending the expected GEDCOM rules by using _REL?

On 2/15/19 8:05 PM, Paul Culley wrote:
It sounds like someone trying to describe a custody arrangement after a divorce. In theory there should be another family, perhaps with a short-term marriage or not married relationship, with the child in a birth relationship to each parent.

But neither Gramps nor ancestry.com would enforce any such thing oh, so it's up to the author to put it in place.

Gramps is certainly capable of holding such a relationship as you have described. There is always a question as to whether or not the non-standard output from ancestry.com (_REL) will be picked up properly however.
Paul C.


On Fri, Feb 15, 2019, 6:38 PM Victor Engel <[hidden email] wrote:
This is not a Gramps-specific question, but I believe there are developers here who are familiar with how GEDCOM files work, so I'm asking a question related to that here. If you know of a better group to ask the question, let me know.

Here is the scenario.

Consider 3 people. Let's call them H, W, and C. There are three INDI records, one for each person. There are 2 family records. C is a child in both. H is husband in one, and W is wife in the other. H and W are not in the same family record. This comes from ancestry.com where there is a subfield called _REL that defines the relationship, and in both cases it is Natural.

It sure seems to me that this should be a single family. Does the Gramps interface that imports GED files handle this situation? If so, how is it handled? I think on Ancestry.com the only way to fix it is by going to the H record and adding W as a spouse or going to the W record and adding H as a husband, since H and W are already C's parents.

Or maybe this is a legitimate scenario? I would think not, since both relationships are Natural.

Victor

--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org


_______________________________________________
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: Specific GEDCOM scenario

victorengel
In reply to this post by GRAMPS - User mailing list
I'm currently working on DNA matches. In that context, it would be entirely appropriate to use the same family for the scenarios you describe.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 9:03 PM [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
Artificial insemination with a sperm donor would have the separate relationships you've outlined. 

The mother and father have no relationship with one another. Putting to them in the same family would be misleading since the Relationship Type choices are limited to: Married, Unmarried, Civil Union, or Unknown.

I also would not be comfortable putting victims of rape in the same family with the victimizers.


On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 20:07, Paul Culley
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org


_______________________________________________
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: Specific GEDCOM scenario

Ron Johnson
In reply to this post by GRAMPS - User mailing list

"Unmarried" is a very broad field.  Very broad.  And -- genetically -- you're still a "family".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family
"In the context of human society, a family (from Latin: familia) is a group of people related either by consanguinity (by recognized birth), affinity (by marriage or other relationship), or co-residence (as implied by the etymology of the English word "family")[citation needed] or some combination of these.[citation needed]"

All those [citation needed] tags are troubling, though.

On 2/15/19 9:36 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
The data chunk is Gramps is a "Family" not a "Relationship". Unmarried also describes long-term couple cohabitating (or living separately) without benefit of Marriage or Civil Union. (Or common law marriage or domestic partnership or...)

Sperm donor and recipient using a sperm bank are often anonymous in both directions. There is no Family and, in that case, no relationships between DNA contributors.

As for "Other", as with most pull-down menus in Gramps, you can define a custion Relationship Type simply by typing a new one.  However, if it gets exported/imported into another program, those niceties would be discarded and the individuals are suddenly in an 'unknown' Relationship again.


On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 21:15, Ron Johnson
The situations you described are Unmarried, and they do have a relationship with each other: maybe it's impersonal, and maybe (definitely) it's an evil relationship, and possibly very short term, but it's still a relationship.
Too bad there's not an "Other" type.
On 2/15/19 9:03 PM, Emyoulation--- via Gramps-users wrote:
Artificial insemination with a sperm donor would have the separate relationships you've outlined. 
The mother and father have no relationship with one another. Putting to them in the same family would be misleading since the Relationship Type choices are limited to: Married, Unmarried, Civil Union, or Unknown.
I also would not be comfortable putting victims of rape in the same family with the victimizers.


--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.


_______________________________________________
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: Specific GEDCOM scenario

victorengel
Perhaps more relevant is the Lineage-Linked grammer that can be indicated in a GEDCOM file.

"The FAMily record is used to record marriages, common law marriages, and family unions caused by two people becoming the parents of a child. There can be no more than one HUSB/father and one WIFE/mother listed in each FAM_RECORD. If, for example, a man participated in more than one family union, then he would appear in more than one FAM_RECORD. The family record structure assumes that the HUSB/father is male and WIFE/mother is female."

If a person is born as the result of rape, sperm donation and is raised by someone else, by this definition, there would have to be at least 2 families.

Victor

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 9:58 PM Ron Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

"Unmarried" is a very broad field.  Very broad.  And -- genetically -- you're still a "family".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family
"In the context of human society, a family (from Latin: familia) is a group of people related either by consanguinity (by recognized birth), affinity (by marriage or other relationship), or co-residence (as implied by the etymology of the English word "family")[citation needed] or some combination of these.[citation needed]"

All those [citation needed] tags are troubling, though.

On 2/15/19 9:36 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
The data chunk is Gramps is a "Family" not a "Relationship". Unmarried also describes long-term couple cohabitating (or living separately) without benefit of Marriage or Civil Union. (Or common law marriage or domestic partnership or...)

Sperm donor and recipient using a sperm bank are often anonymous in both directions. There is no Family and, in that case, no relationships between DNA contributors.

As for "Other", as with most pull-down menus in Gramps, you can define a custion Relationship Type simply by typing a new one.  However, if it gets exported/imported into another program, those niceties would be discarded and the individuals are suddenly in an 'unknown' Relationship again.


On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 21:15, Ron Johnson
The situations you described are Unmarried, and they do have a relationship with each other: maybe it's impersonal, and maybe (definitely) it's an evil relationship, and possibly very short term, but it's still a relationship.
Too bad there's not an "Other" type.
On 2/15/19 9:03 PM, Emyoulation--- via Gramps-users wrote:
Artificial insemination with a sperm donor would have the separate relationships you've outlined. 
The mother and father have no relationship with one another. Putting to them in the same family would be misleading since the Relationship Type choices are limited to: Married, Unmarried, Civil Union, or Unknown.
I also would not be comfortable putting victims of rape in the same family with the victimizers.


--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org


_______________________________________________
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: Specific GEDCOM scenario

Nick Hall
In reply to this post by Ron Johnson
On 16/02/2019 02:50, Ron Johnson wrote:
> But how could there not be a FAMI record associating H & W?  No need
> for a Marriage event, but they are -- in the strict lineage-linked
> definition -- a "family" unit, even if C was the product of a
> one-night stand.
>
> Or is Ancestry bending the expected GEDCOM rules by using _REL?


The _REL tag is an extension to GEDCOM.

There is another extension which uses MREL and FREL tags in the family
record.  Gramps decided to use this approach.

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: Specific GEDCOM scenario

victorengel
I know this is an extension. I mentioned it only to illustrate the nature of the relationship being represented.

On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 6:16 AM Nick Hall <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 16/02/2019 02:50, Ron Johnson wrote:

> But how could there not be a FAMI record associating H & W?  No need

> for a Marriage event, but they are -- in the strict lineage-linked

> definition -- a "family" unit, even if C was the product of a

> one-night stand.

>

> Or is Ancestry bending the expected GEDCOM rules by using _REL?





The _REL tag is an extension to GEDCOM.



There is another extension which uses MREL and FREL tags in the family

record.  Gramps decided to use this approach.



Nick.









_______________________________________________

Gramps-users mailing list

[hidden email]

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users

https://gramps-project.org


_______________________________________________
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: Specific GEDCOM scenario

victorengel
In reply to this post by Nick Hall
Sorry, I mistyped when I said _REL. The tags are _MREL and _FREL. Note the leading underscore, which indicates a non-standard tag.

On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 6:16 AM Nick Hall <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 16/02/2019 02:50, Ron Johnson wrote:
> But how could there not be a FAMI record associating H & W?  No need
> for a Marriage event, but they are -- in the strict lineage-linked
> definition -- a "family" unit, even if C was the product of a
> one-night stand.
>
> Or is Ancestry bending the expected GEDCOM rules by using _REL?


The _REL tag is an extension to GEDCOM.

There is another extension which uses MREL and FREL tags in the family
record.  Gramps decided to use this approach.

Nick.




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


_______________________________________________
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: Specific GEDCOM scenario

Ron Johnson
In reply to this post by Nick Hall
On 2/16/19 6:15 AM, Nick Hall wrote:
On 16/02/2019 02:50, Ron Johnson wrote:
But how could there not be a FAMI record associating H & W?  No need for a Marriage event, but they are -- in the strict lineage-linked definition -- a "family" unit, even if C was the product of a one-night stand.

Or is Ancestry bending the expected GEDCOM rules by using _REL?


The _REL tag is an extension to GEDCOM.

There is another extension which uses MREL and FREL tags in the family record.  Gramps decided to use this approach.

Does this mean that Gramps does not understand _REL?


--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.


_______________________________________________
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: Specific GEDCOM scenario

victorengel
Please note that _REL was a typo on my part. There is no such tag in the GEDCOM files I've looked at. In the scenario I originally posted, one was _FREL. The other _MREL.

Victor

On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 10:26 AM Ron Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 2/16/19 6:15 AM, Nick Hall wrote:
On 16/02/2019 02:50, Ron Johnson wrote:
But how could there not be a FAMI record associating H & W?  No need for a Marriage event, but they are -- in the strict lineage-linked definition -- a "family" unit, even if C was the product of a one-night stand.

Or is Ancestry bending the expected GEDCOM rules by using _REL?


The _REL tag is an extension to GEDCOM.

There is another extension which uses MREL and FREL tags in the family record.  Gramps decided to use this approach.

Does this mean that Gramps does not understand _REL?


--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org


_______________________________________________
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: Specific GEDCOM scenario

Nick Hall
In reply to this post by victorengel
On 16/02/2019 16:24, Victor Engel wrote:
> Sorry, I mistyped when I said _REL. The tags are _MREL and _FREL. Note
> the leading underscore, which indicates a non-standard tag.

I have just had a look at our code.  It appears that we both import and
export the _MREL and _FREL tags.

However, because they are non-standard tags there is no guarantee that
all applications will handle them in the same way.

Hopefully, the FHISO extended legacy format (ELF) will help standardise
the situation in the future.


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: Specific GEDCOM scenario

Ron Johnson
On 2/16/19 10:45 AM, Nick Hall wrote:
> On 16/02/2019 16:24, Victor Engel wrote:
>> Sorry, I mistyped when I said _REL. The tags are _MREL and _FREL. Note
>> the leading underscore, which indicates a non-standard tag.
>
> I have just had a look at our code.  It appears that we both import and
> export the _MREL and _FREL tags.

Do you convert them into Family objects?

>
> However, because they are non-standard tags there is no guarantee that all
> applications will handle them in the same way.
>
> Hopefully, the FHISO extended legacy format (ELF) will help standardise
> the situation in the future.


--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.


_______________________________________________
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: Specific GEDCOM scenario

Nick Hall
On 16/02/2019 18:47, Ron Johnson wrote:
I have just had a look at our code.  It appears that we both import and export the _MREL and _FREL tags.

Do you convert them into Family objects?

On import they are used to populate the relationship fields in the child reference object.  These are contained within the family object.

Nick.



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