TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2003-03 > 1046547824


From: "Richard, Barbara & Robbie Damon" <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] Places - a TMG wishlist item for v.6
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 14:43:44 -0500
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030301110343.00a35bf0@pop.sprynet.com>


Darrell,
While having one record for a place for all time may work for many cities
and towns, as you get to bigger divisions it will breakdown too many times
(and even for some cities). There are too many cases of a region breaking up
into several or several regions combining.

What would make sense is to have a place entry have a link to the place(s)
it later became or what it was previously. This combined with the begin &
end dates of a place should provide most of the data to trace the evolution
of places.

Richard Damon
--
(Genealogy)
(Home)
(Work)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darrell A. Martin [mailto:]
> Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 12:49 PM
> To:
> Subject: [TMG] Places - a TMG wishlist item for v.6
> Hi:
>
> I do not have a completely consistent method, but I'm working on it. It's
> one of the two small cleanup projects that still face me in ver. 4.0d.
>
> I have an aversion to creating two Place Records for what is
> undoubtedly a
> single place.
...
> Vermont, to the *one* place record that has that name. At the Tag
> level, I
> make a note, as necessary, "then called Flamstead, New Hampshire" or
> whatever applies. This permits me to identify continuity of
> residence, and
> connections to other residences, through the CRW.
>
> What I would *really* like to see is a revamping of the structure
> of place
> records in TMG. Each record should have a more or less arbitrary
> designation, visible to the user (the "primary name" or a "number") that
> would have "Name-Var" equivalents tied to it. Just as Tags in v.5 can be
> connected to Witnesses (Primary or Other) through their names at
> the time,
> or as recorded, without having to have more than one Person
> record; so, we
> should be able to connect Tags to Places through various names without
> having more than one Place Record. This implies a few changes to the user
> interface as well, I think.
>
> But this should not be done until ver. 5 is really finished, and stable,
> and as bug-free as may be reasonably expected of complex software running
> on a hodge-podge of equipment and operating systems. At least that is my
> opinion.
>
> Darrell
>


This thread: