TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2004-07 > 1088704957


From: Tim Powys-Lybbe <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Assigning ID numbers
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 19:02:37 +0100
References: <200407011625.i61GPIhH015443@mail.rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <200407011625.i61GPIhH015443@mail.rootsweb.com>


In message of 1 Jul, "Lee Kaiwen" <> wrote:

> I apologize, because this isn't really a TMG-related question. I looked
> elsewhere, but didn't find a satisfactory solution, so given the incredible
> wealth of genealogical experience in this forum, I thought I'd toss my
> problem out here.
>
> After years of computerized genealogy, I've decided I'm way past due in
> organizing my hard copy stuff. Before I start opening boxes and creating
> endless stacks of folders and other papers, I'm trying to establish a
> flexible filing/organizational system. The first step in that process is
> figuring a system for assigning individual and family group ID numbers. I'm
> reading DeBartolo Carmack's book on organizing your research, but the system
> she describes in the early chapters -- based on ahnentafels -- appears to be
> rather inadequate to the task at hand.
>
> Instead, I've devised an ahnentafel-based system that works something like
> this:
>
> DLA - direct-line ancestor: any individual on your pedigree chart
> DLF - direct-line family group: any family in which BOTH parents are DLAs
> CS - collateral spouse: any spouse of a DLA who is not also a DLA; e.g., a
> stepparent.
> CR - collateral relative: any blood-relation who is not on your pedigree.
>
> DLAs just use their ahnentafels as IDs. DLFs are assigned the head of
> household's ID as the family group ID (e.g., family group #4 is my paternal
> grandfather's family, including my father and his siblings). CSs are
> assigned the ID of the DLA spouse postfixed with a, b, c, etc., indicating
> spousal order (e.g., my stepmother is #2b). And finally, all other CRs are
> given an ID consisting of the family group ID of the DLF from which they're
> descended, followed by a decimal and a number indicating birth order -- one
> dot and number for each generation removed from the DLA.
>
> Some examples:
>
> 2 is my father.
> 2.1 is my sister.
> 2.1a is my brother-in-law.
> 2.1.1 is my niece or nephew.
> 2b is my stepmother.
> 2b.1 is my half-sibling.
> 2b.1.1 is my half-niece or -nephew.
> 4.1.3 is the third child of my paternal
> grandfather's firstborn; i.e., my cousin
> 27b.2.5.3 is my second half-cousin, once removed

What is your step-mother's third cousin four times removed? (I jest
not, sometimes it is interesting to have a bit of a study of an
in-law's family.)

Then what about moving people around when you find you have put them in
the wrong place?

And what about the people that appear twice in the same tree? I have
one chap who is my N times gt-grandfather by 900 odd different routes
because of intermarriage in the intervening generations. What number do
you give to him?

And then what about the people who you think might fit in somewhere but
have yet to find out where they belong?

Most computer record systems work with with a base reference number that
means nothing and is fixed. Then you build up relationships from
there. You alter the relationship file but you do not alter your basic
about each person.

>
> The advantages of this system seem to be that it's comprehensive (it should
> cover all blood relations, whether direct-line or collateral), easy to
> learn, easy to read, and fairly compact. I've seen one or two alternative
> proposals floating around, but nothing that seems to have any substantial
> advantages over mine. Has anyone here seen a better system? Any potential
> problems I've failed to anticipate?
>
> There is one problem I'm running into: I have several lines that go back in
> excess of thirty generations. Thanks to the modern miracle of multiplication
> by two, this means I've got a fair number of 8- and 9-digit ahnentafels,
> which are fairly unwieldy as ID numbers. Quick, which ancestor comes first
> -- 44120448 or 220602432? See what I mean :-)? (And yes, those are REAL
> ahnentafels from my pedigree.)
>
> I'm toying with the idea of assigning IDs based instead on pedigree page
> number. E.g., 48:12 would be individual #12 on page 48 of my pedigree.
> Problem is, assigning page numbers turns out to be a decidedly non-trivial
> task.
>
> I'm asking to start filing. Anyone have any suggestions?

Give it a good think first before you throw out the normal practice of
random reference numbers. There has to be a reason where every system
designer does it this way.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

This thread: