TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2006-11 > 1162390712


From: "Teresa Elliott" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Wishlist-New column
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 08:24:56 -0600
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061101031800.03dcf4c0@whollygenes.com>


I admit I did not think of bigamists, since I don't have any. I would have
the tag refigure when a new marriage tag or divorce tag with the same two
principals. Wouldn't at the death of a spouse simply because I was wanting
it to figure the age and marriage years together. What brought it up was I
had a guy I thought was remarried, but the number of years married, and the
woman's age matched that of his wife's and I realized that the census taker
was recording her as alive because she was alive on the day the census
should have been taken, but deceased on the enumeration date.

Teresa Ghee Elliott
--http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~rutherfordcemetery/
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf
Of Bob Velke
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 2:49 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [TMG] Wishlist-New column

DeAnna said:

> >>Regardless of source or surety level, etc.?<<
>
>Sure, why not? Age calculates regardless of source or surety, doesn't it?

My point is that, in MY project at least, a divorce-group tag or
death of a spouse didn't necessarily happen in history just because I
happen to have a tag for it. I have _evidence_ of a lot of things
that may never have really happened and each is properly distinguish
or qualified by the source and/or surety. TMG's features try to
emphasize that we're working with evidence, not historical facts. It
seems to me if the program drew conclusions about a person's marital
status at the time of a census, for instance, based on the mere
existence (or lack thereof!) of certain tags, then it would be
interpreting those tags as historical fact.

I don't really want to get into the predictable debate about whether
a couple is still married after one of the spouses dies. Not
everyone's oath or religious beliefs include " 'till death do us
part." Suffice it to say (please!) that people will disagree on this point.

>(Can't re-calculate based on remarriage of a spouse or initiation of
>a new marriage, because that would mess up bigamists
>and polygamists.)

Sigh <g>. It seems that you and Teresa already disagree how the
feature would work in the case of a second marriage.

>One possible hitch, of course, is the presence of a divorce-group event
with
>only one principal. I have to assume in that situation the count would not
>reset. (It is possible to enter a divorce with only P1, isn't it?)

Yes. And what about a non-primary divorce-group (or marriage-group!) event?

>>Doesn't the proposal encourages people to look at the data as
>>historical fact, rather than evidence?
>
>No more so than age...

I don't agree. The age is calculated based on the year of the
event. If it is prior to 2006, then I can say with some certainty
that the year happened <g>. Having the program assert the person's
_status_ at that moment in time is a different kettle of fish and
requires a thoughtful analysis of the evidence. That's the part that
bothers me.

>This is yet another time I find myself briefly wishing I could paint
>(subtle!!) gridlines on the person view. ...

Um....do you mean like File > Preferences > Program Options > Lists >
Show vertical/horizontal lines?

Bob Velke
Wholly Genes Software


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.15/503 - Release Date: 10/27/2006


-------------------------------
For seaching the list archives and other list information, please go to
http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/TMG.html.
To contact the TMG List Administrator, send a message to
.
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
the subject and the body of the message


This thread: