TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-12 > 1041300577


From: Linda Gaylord-Kuhn <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] 5.04 Principal v. Role
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 20:09:41 -0600
In-Reply-To: <3E10E7C9.80600@reigelridge.com>


Terry, thanks for the explanations. A few comments (below) ...

> >Quick question first:
> > Is it possible to edit Role Names (i.e. change "wife" to "Wife")?
> >
>
> I don't think there is a way to do that.

Drat! I like the way roles beginning with a capital float to the top of
the list. Need I say it wouldn't be worth the effort to delete the
roles and reattach everyone? <g>

>
> >Main Dilemma.
> > I'm a bit confused about when to use Principal and when to use
Role.
> >
>
> First, you are using the Roles in two ways - 1) to apply a specific
> sentence structure for some one, and 2) to refer to someone by Role in
> the Sentence Structure of another person. These are both valid uses
for
> Roles, but it's good to have in mind which you are trying to
accomplish
> when you think about using Roles.

Obviously, there's a need to do different things in different
situations... your application 2 (above) seems to be the most confusing.

> >Is there an advantage to one version over the other in my example
below?
> >If so, _please_ explain.
> >
> >CENSUS TAG (my sentence structures)
> >====================================================
> > P = R:Head of Household (?or leave as Principal)
> > PO = R:Wife (?or leave as Principal)
> > Witnesses = R:Son, R:Dau, etc.
> >
> >====================================================
> > HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD Sentence Option 1:
> > [:CR:][:TAB:]. 1930 U.S. CENSUS - <[R:Head of Household]> was
listed
> >as the head of a household enumerated <[D]> <[L]> (Ref. [M1]<,
[M2]>).
> ><[M3]>
> >
> > HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD Sentence Option 2:
> > [:CR:][:TAB:]. 1930 U.S. CENSUS - <[P]> was listed as the head of
a
> >household enumerated <[D]> <[L]> (Ref. [M1]<, [M2]>). <[M3]>
> >=====================================================
> > WIFE Sentence Option 1:
> > [:CR:][:TAB:]. 1930 U.S. Census - [R:Wife] was shown as
> >[ITAL:]wife[:ITAL] in the household of [R:Head of Household],
enumerated
> ><[D]> <[L]> (Ref. [M1]<, [M2]>).
> >
> > WIFE Sentence Option 2:
> > [:CR:][:TAB:]. 1930 U.S. Census - [P] was shown as
> >[ITAL:]wife[:ITAL] in the household of [PO], enumerated <[D]> <[L]>
> >(Ref. [M1]<, [M2]>).
> >
>
> Is your question whether to assign Roles to the HoH and Wife, or
whether
> to use the Role variables? If it's the former, you probably want to
use
> Roles if you want different sentence structures for HoH and Wife, as
you
> have here. You could do this by using different Sentence structures
for
> males and females, but then you'd have a problem when the HoH was a
> female (mainly when there is no husband in the cases I've seen.) So if
> you want them to print this way, I'd say use Roles. One caution --
doing
> this make the same census tag appear for both husband and wife in the
> Journal reports, while a using a combined sentence structure will
cause
> it to appear only once. Don't know if that matters to you.

Actually, I was trying to ask, "When is it expedient to do one, the
other or both?" As for the census, I use the Memo field for the census
transcript so I definitely don't want the Memo to print more than once
(so I left it off of the other role sentences). I do like, however,
seeing a bare-bones sentence showing that the spouse and each of the
kids appeared in the household.
I decided that HoH should always be P1, regardless of gender, and that
a spouse (and only a spouse) should be assigned as P2. I saw one census
where the wife was the HoH and her husband was listed second. All the
Real & Personal property was attributed to her, so maybe the census
taker just decided she should be the HoH on that point alone.
Anyway, I noticed that when P1 is toggled from "Principal" to some
other role, P2 often changes as well (and not necessarily to something I
would want). I noticed on one Immigrant tag that the Mother was P1 (as
she should have been) but one of her four children showed up as P2 -- I
assume this happened since I had the whole family marked as "Principal"
in UFT so that their role sentences would print.

> As far as using the Role variables, there is no real value so far as I
> can see and it makes the Sentences harder to type. On the other hand,
> some might think it's easier to understand the the sentence structure
> with the role variables. But in the end it doesn't really matter - the
> output is the same.

Well, the role problem that triggered all this (specifically with the
census) was that Grandpa AND his brother were _both_ listed on each
other's census tag (i.e. Harry Gaylord and Ray Gaylord appeared ...).
That was because I had them coded as [R:Son] in the "Son" role sentence
instead of as [W]. That's what got me to thinking that using the
[R:role] variable might have other adverse effects in other situations.
And that's when I got confused. <LOL>

> > =====================================================
> >DAUGHTER Sentence Option 1:
> > [:CR:][:TAB:]. 1930 U.S. Census - [P] was listed as
> >[ITAL:]daughter[:ITAL] in the household of [R:Head of Household]< and
> >[R:Wife]>, enumerated <[D]> <[L]> (Ref. [M1]<, [M2]>).
> >
> >DAUGHTER Sentence Option 2:
> > [:CR:][:TAB:]. 1930 U.S. Census - [P] was listed as
> >[ITAL:]daughter[:ITAL] in the household of [P1]< and [P2]>,
enumerated
> ><[D]> <[L]> (Ref. [M1]<, [M2]>).
> >=====================================================
> >
>
> Again, it doesn't matter much. If you use the role variables you can
put
> either spouse in either Principal slot and the HoH will always be
listed
> first. If you use [P1] and [P2] you have to be sure you put them in
the
> correct order, if it matters to you. Use what ever seems to make the
> most sense to you.

My plan is to put the HoH first, regardless of gender and just not
genderize (is that a word?) the sentence for HoH or otherwise code the
role in way where gender would be an issue.

> (However, there is an error in both these -- since
> the daughter is a Witness, you can't use the [P] variable for her --
you
> have to either use [W] or [R:Daughter].)

Yeah, I noticed the typo after it was sent, but when no one answered
right away I didn't think it was worth "fixing" <VBG>. The "period" in
front of the census year was also supposed to be a bullet.

> Often it doesn't matter, and in such cases I generally use the [P] and
> [W] variables, so I don't have to type the longer one. However,
> sometimes it does matter. If you want to refer to one specific
Principal
> by Role without regard for the position in the tag,

You lost me, Terry, on the "without regard for the position in the tag"
part.

> or if you want to
> refer to one of several witnesses, you have to use the role variables.

Gotcha. The Grandpa thing. <G>

>
> On the other hand, sometimes you can't use the Role variables.
Consider
> the following example from a marriage tag:
>
> Role: First
> Sentence: [P] married first [PO] <[PARO]> <[D]> <[L]>< [M]>
>
> Role: Second
> Sentence: [P] married second [PO] <[PARO]> <[D]> <[L]>< [M]>
>
> Role: Third
> Sentence: [P] married third [PO] <[PARO]> <[D]> <[L]>< [M]>

I saw that on your web site and experimented with it in an earlier
incarnation of my file ... I definitely plan on using it! Those are
grrrreat uses of roles.

>
> In this application, either spouse could have any Role, including the
> default Bride or Groom Roles. In fact, both can have the same Role.
> While you could use the role variable instead of the [P], you'd go
nuts
> trying to figure out how to use role variables instead of [PO]. In
fact,
> I don't know how you could do it when both have the same Role except
for
> creating a whole set of separate Roles for bride and groom.

And that brings up another question associated with multiple marriages.
Let's play the game, "What's My Birth Order?" I'm my mother's firstborn
and my father's secondborn. I've been trying to figure out a slick way
to incorporate birth order into the birth roles, but scenarios like this
make it impossible to do. Right?

>
> But to get back to your original question, if you can't figure out why
> you need to use one or the other, it probably doesn't matter.

Makes sense to me. Thanks!!!!



This thread: