TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2003-06 > 1054525710


From: "Teresa Ghee Elliott" <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] Automatic "relation" tag - Opinions wanted
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 22:48:40 -0500
In-Reply-To: <3EDA5E73.65CBA742@infoave.net>


Richard, et al,
Figures, I would take one day off, and I'd get blamed for something.
<G>
I had at one time asked Bob that one of the outputs of the LOP would be
to create a new tag for a group of people. Say I want all men in my
database who were possible Civil war candidates. I could run the LOP
and it would create a new war tag for those individuals. I would tell
it what tag to create and could tell it what date to use for all of
them, what source, and even what place.
Now granted what I am discussing wouldn't work for what you are
describing, but what if there was an output that you could run ONLY when
you wanted it. Say I want to find the relationship to everyone in my
database to my third cousin, Billy Bob. I could run the report. Maybe
the option would then be to
A: Create a new relationship tag.
B: Just show the relationship in the auto relation tag (a temporary
tag)
C: Just run the report to screen, file, or printer.
Then if I was at a family reunion, and Billy Bob wanted to see how he
was related to Abraham Lincoln, I could choose B above, and I wouldn't
then be stuck with a bunch of tags that I would want to delete later.
I am not sure how the Auto relation tag would work if you had several,
unless it made me P1 and the person that was the relative P2.
But I will sure second the ability to make a group of tags from a LOP.
I can think of thousands of uses for that. <VBG>
Here are some of my examples:
I find that there is a rare Rutherford County census for 1832. No one
even knew it existed, until Marty (one of our wonderful Rutherford
County people, if we are going to use Rutherford as an example. <G>)
finds it in a back room at the archives.
So I run a LOP for all males ages 17-70 who were alive in 1832. I then
narrow that list down to men who had any tag there in 1830-1840. Now I
use the LOP to create a NEW tag for each of those men called CAN-1832.
I then can work my way down the list changing CAN-1832 to 1832CEN tags
as I find each one. I can make the output for the CAN-1832 something
like. [R:HOH] was living in the Rutherford County area during the years
of 1830-1840, so I believe it is possible that he was listed on the 1832
Census of the area.
Yes, I could create a flag (no output except FGS), a research log
(doesn't print in narrative), create each tag myself from a focus group,
but this would be infinitely faster.
Or:: I want to create a CAN-Mexican war tag for every male the right
age to have fought in the Mexican war. I can run the LOP, and have it
create my new tag. Then I can see on the PV of each male that needs to
be verified.

I prefer tags for this for two reasons. One, they are in my face. I
can't forget that I need to do this research, and Two, I can print the
research needs in my narrative reports, so fellow researchers can see
where I am headed with the research as well, and I can keep research
notes there to myself as well.
Teresa Ghee Elliott
For examples of TMG sentences <http://www.tmgsentences.home-page.org>;
Interested in Rutherford County, TN cemeteries?
<http://www.rutherfordcemeteries.home-page.org>;


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Brogger [mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 2:14 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [TMG] Automatic "relation" tag - Opinions wanted


Oops! Maybe I have taken the wrong approach. In writing the comment
about other uses my brain went off on a tangent and I will blame it on
Teresa. She can find ways to use features that were never intended and
in thinking about that I came up with a different approach.

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.

Using the Automatic "relation" tag discussion as a basis, what if:
1) the user designs a custom "Related" tag
2) the List of Persons report could generate a "Related" tag for
everyone in the data set, who meets the filter criteria, and include
the results that would normally be produced by the Automatic
"relation" tag.

The results would be about like those of the proposed additions to the
Automatic "relation" tag. The ability to toggle those tags to Off for
P1's Person View would still be needed. However, the ability to add
custom tags would have uses far beyond showing just the results
currently produced by the Automatic "relation" tag. For example,
Kinship report results might be used instead of those produced by the
Automatic "relation" tag. I have not thought about the ramifications
of this idea but I believe it has potential.

Let's say that one makes a non person called "Rutheford Cemetery".
Using the secondary output of a report, a "Cemetery" tag is generated
for everyone buried in Rutheford Cemetery and they are made P2. When
the user went to the Rutheford 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.

Since this whole idea is new to me, did I just lay an egg or does this
secondary output idea have possibilities?

Richard Brogger


==== TMG Mailing List ====
Visit the TMG Tips web site <http://www.tmgtips.com>; for items of
interest to TMG users.

This thread: