TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2004-07 > 1088942471


From: Tim Powys-Lybbe <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Spouses even though no marriage shown?
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 13:01:11 +0100
References: <485ea3c84c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk> <8806b8c84c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk> <5a5dc4c84c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk> <013201c4611e$2e17a070$6401a8c0@charliexv>
In-Reply-To: <013201c4611e$2e17a070$6401a8c0@charliexv>


In message of 3 Jul, "Jim Byram" <> wrote:

> Tim,
>
> Going off and doing something else brings clarity. I think that the
> discussion can be reframed in a very simple manner.
>
> First, I don't think that there is any 'missing' data.
>
> Let's look at it like this...
> Generations has a Married flag and the settings (for example) are as
> follows:
> 0 - the flag has not been set
> 1 - marriage
> 2 - unmarried
> 3 - common law marriage

This is not the sole information used by Generations to determine the
status of the marriage. Just because there is (Is there? I have no
idea) a field in the database labelled "Married flag" does not mean that
this is the sole source of the data. Generations uses other information
and put that through some logic before it can work out what the marriage
status is.

> In earlier versions of Generations lacking the flag, the 'setting'
> would be equivalent to 0.
>
> When Generations makes reports etc., it assumes a marriage if the
> Married flag setting is 0 or 1.

I would not say that Generations "Assumes" a marriage. I would say that
Generations _knows_ that it is a Marriage and reports this totally
correctly everywhere.

Generations also refers to the list of couples. The only way I can
interpret what I see in the reports is:

1. The status of a couple is Marriage unless a flag (I think
there are two but really don't know how the data is stored) is set to
show a different status. This makes it quick to enter the most common
relationship between cohabiting couples, that of Marriage. The
uncommon relationship (in the past anyway) of "Unmarried" requires extra
effort. This design within Generations saves the user time in data
entry.

2. If the user has opened the "Edit Family" window and changes one of
the data-choice fields on the status of the marriage, then the result
will be what is reported or exported.

>
> When TMG does the import it creates a Marriage tag only if the
> Married flag setting is 1.

This is where TMG is not reading the data in Generations correctly.
Generations would say that a couple's status is Marriage unless the user
has entered something different. That is how Generations works.

> You would like to see TMG create a Marriage tag on import if the
> Generations Married flag is set to 0 or 1.

I have no idea about this Married flag. All I know is that couples that
Generations shows with a status of Marriage should be imported as
Married. It is up to TMG to find the data that Generations uses to make
these correct reports and then use all that data to transfer the right
marriage status over to TMG.

> I think that is the essence of the discussion and fits the data as we
> understand it.

But if anyone restricts "the data" to a marriage flag (which the user
can't see, all the user can see is what is on the screens and on the
reports) then TMG is likely to get the import wrong. All the data must
be included and interpreted in the same way that the Generations program
interprets it to transfer the data over correctly. I accept that you
may not now be restricting the data to this marriage flag, but this must
be made explicit to the TMG programmers.

> > Or do you think that Generations is incorrect in reporting that
> > married couples are married?
>
> There is a contradiction in your question. How you know that a couple
> is married unless the user has taken affirmative action to record
> that they are married?

I know that they are married if the user enters first the male spouse
and then, on the same main window, the female spouse. This is how you
enter a marriage in Generations. All the reports then report that a
marriage has been entered. No further affirmative action is needed.

Obviously if the couple are not married but "Unmarried" or "Common Law"
the user has to tell Generations of this and the reports will then
correctly show the new information.

> Do I think that Generations is incorrect in reporting that couples are
> married when there has been no assertion of any sort by the user to
> record the event? Yes. The program is making an assumption on behalf
> of the user that may or may not be correct.

The program is not making an assumption. This is the way that marriages
are entered. On the contrary an assumption is being made by saying that
marriages are not entered in this way.

The program knows that people entered in this very simple and quick way
are married. If the user wishes to record them as Unmarried or Common
Law, then he has to open up the Edit Family window and record just
that. I know this use of the Edit Family window is extra work, but it
is only necessary for the small minority of cases. (Obviously other
data such as place, date and data source are also entered in the Edit
Family window, but we are not discussing these now.)

----------- ooooooooooooo -------------

Lest anyone wonders how it is that marriages are entered without
knowing the date or place, this is the problem with the pedigrees in
the English heraldic visitations. These pedigrees occupy 60 odd books
and are very valuable for genealogy of the 16th and 17th centuries as
they contain contemporary records. But the pedigrees contain only the
names of the couple - and sometimes only of one of them. Some of the
Visitations are on-line. Have a look at one of the Cheshire
visitations:

http://www.scfhs.org.uk/scfhs/visitations/BookVC1580/c001.htm

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

This thread: