FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-L Archives

Archiver > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS > 2004-06 > 1088340488


From: "John Wheatley" <>
Subject: RE: [FHU] How to enter grandchildren?
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 13:48:08 +0100


The GEDCOM standard allows for an individual record without any subordinate tags (such as SEX, for example). It also allows for a tag with no corresponding value. To quote:

"The presence of a tag together with a value represents an assertion which the submitter wishes to communicate to a receiver. A tag with no value does not represent an assertion. If a tag is absent, no assertion is made, for example, no information is submitted. Information of a negative nature (such as knowing positively an event did not occur) is handled through the semantic definition of a tag and accompanying values that assert the information explicitly. It is not represented by absence of a tag."

Hence one can have an Individual record with, or without a SEX tag, and, if with a SEX tag, one without its corresponding value (in this case either M or F for male or female).

FH allows the value of a SEX tag to be cleared, as well as being set to either male or female. Additionally, one can delete the tag entirely, from within FH itself. This is all quite correct and in keeping with the standard.

Now, moving on to the problem in hand, how to represent a granddaughter with undetermined parents. I also have one of these in my tree, therefore find the question interesting. At first glance, it seems that it can be handled in a number of ways. However, on closer analysis, each of these ways represents an assumption that must be documented explicitly, in order to be represented under the GEDCOM standard.

It is true that the child (granddaughter) in question must have had parents, one of which must have been female and the other male.

What is not known is whether the parent related to the grandparents was female, or male.

FH does not allow the creation of a family unit without assigning a gender to each parent. This is necessary, because the GEDCOM standard has specific HUSB(and) and WIFE tags, as part of the FAM(ily) record structure, with which to link Individuals as parents.

Thus, by creating a family unit for the granddaughter, one is forced to choose which parent (male, or female) was a child of the grandparents, and since a family unit must be created, in order to link a child to parents, then there is a problem of assumption.

Furthermore, if looking at a census entry that states that a child is the granddaughter of the head of the household, consideration has to be given to whether that granddaughter was also a child of the head of the household's current spouse, or whether she had a different mother.

In short, there is no immediate way, that I can think of, of resolving this issue correctly. My advice would be to make the necessary assumptions and document these clearly with appropriate NOTE records. I personally, would assume the gender of the granddaughter's parent. For interest, I reproduce below the minimum GEDCOM syntax (commented) that would represent this situation, together with a documentation of the assumption.

// The Grandfather

0 @I1@ INDI
1 NAME John /Smith/
1 SEX M
1 FAMS @F1@

// The Grandmother

0 @I2@ INDI
1 NAME Mary /Jones/
1 SEX F
1 FAMS @F1@
1 NOTE *ASSUMPTION* Has granddaughter related to spouse as head

// The Granddaughter's unknown parent, child of the Grandparents
// Gender is assumed here which implies role (as mother)

0 @I3@ INDI
1 SEX F
1 FAMC @F1@
1 FAMS @F3@
1 NOTE *ASSUMPTION* Gender

// The Granddaughter

0 @I4@ INDI
1 FAMC @F3@

// The Granddaughter's second unknown parent
// Gender is assumed here which implies role (as father)

0 @I5@ INDI
1 SEX M
1 FAMS @F3@
1 NOTE *ASSUMPTION* Gender

// The Grandparent's family unit

0 @F1@ FAM
1 HUSB @I1@
1 WIFE @I2@
1 CHIL @I3@

// The Granddaughter's family unit

0 @F3@ FAM
1 HUSB @I5@
1 WIFE @I3@
1 CHIL @I4@

I don't know the GEDCOM standard well enough, to know for certain whether an alternative device, such as creating an ALIAS, or such-like, might be a better solution. It appears to me that the FAMily unit forced HUSB and WIFE tag links are a shortcoming of the standard, one which I believe is addressed in the proposed XML replacement version, where redundant bi-directional links are dropped and links are more generalised, being qualified as necessary (if I recall correctly).

John
http://thewheatleys.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Banks [mailto:]
> Sent: 27 June 2004 11:41
> To:
> Subject: Re: [FHU] How to enter grandchildren?
>
>
> Hi Ed
>
> Why don't you enter a father with the surname of the child -
> Unknown, BLOGGS, mother Unknown, UNKNOWN. Then link the
> father to the grandfather - I am assuming they have the same
> surname! This will be a constant reminder to you that you
> have a couple whose details are unknown to you.
>
> I use this device to remind me and periodically I trawl my
> files, IGI, FreeBMD, 1901Online etc. to try and clear up my 'unknowns'
>
> I think your method is unsafe as you are doing the worst
> thing possible - tinkering with the GEDCOM when FH is the
> most accurate adherer to the GEDCOM standard there is - you
> would be forgiven if it was PAF or FTM etc.;-)
>
> ps, did you get any worthwhile replies 'off-list', I am
> curious why people reply 'off-list' to interesting queries
> like this one!!!
>
> Regards
>
> David Banks
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Edward Shave" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 2:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [FHU] How to enter grandchildren?
>
>
> > In reply to my own request for help, I have found a
> workaround that
> > seems to do the trick. After having entered an arbitrary
> sex into FH,
> > I closed
> the
> > program then removed the relevant gender field from the GEDCOM file
> > using
> a
> > text editor. After this FH does not complain and displays a
> blank sex
> field
> > as desired. Perhaps Simon could comment on the advisability of this
> > approach?
> >
> > Many thanks to all those offering advice both on and off list. Ed
> >
> >
> > ==============================
> > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
> > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more.
> > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ==============================
> Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
> Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more.
> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail has been virus checked.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.710 / Virus Database: 466 - Release Date: 23/06/2004
>
>

---
Outgoing mail has been virus checked.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.710 / Virus Database: 466 - Release Date: 23/06/2004


This thread: