TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2003-06 > 1054517064


From: "Darrell A. Martin" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Automatic "relation" tag - Opinions wanted
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 20:26:32 -0500
References: <3EDA5E73.65CBA742@infoave.net><5.1.1.6.0.20030601140128.02d4a030@mail.fscv.net>
In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20030601200048.0268b3c0@mail.fscv.net>


At 08:43 PM 6/1/03 -0400, wrote:
>[snip]
>>Let's forget the Automatic "relation" tag for a moment. Instead, let's
>>think about generation of Custom Tags as secondary output of a report.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Let's say that one makes a non person called "Rutherford Cemetery".
>>Using the secondary output of a report, a "Cemetery" tag is generated
>>for everyone buried in Rutherford Cemetery and they are made P2. When
>>the user went to the Rutherford Cemetery person, P1, that Detail would
>>show everyone buried in that cemetery. Now that sort of flips the
>>coin. I would not want the Cemetery tag to appear for P2 but I would
>>want it to appear for P1.
>
>I would think that the tags would be valuable in both places:
>
> P1: the tags show everyone buried in the cemetery
> P2: the tag shows where that person is buried
>
>Walt

Hi, Walt:

As I have read this thread I have begun to lean more toward *not* including
the "target person" as a witness in the normal sense (that is, neither as a
Principal nor as an Other witness) to each Tag generated by this
hypothetical feature **unless** there were a "switch" that said whether to
display in the PV all relationship Tags for which the focus person is the
target. It would be best if that could be done on the individual person level.

The "display primary Tags only" option should not be held hostage to this
proposed feature.

This adds another layer of complexity to TMG, which it needs like a moose
needs a hat rack. Was it Andy who said, "Maybe version 8?"

Darrell


Darrell Allen MARTIN
a native Vermonter currently in exile in Addison, Illinois
www.darrell-martin.net/genealogy/

This thread: