TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2011-03 > 1300209719

From: "Darrell A. Martin" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] design question
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:22:05 -0500
References: <> <> <> <><00a201cbe32a$724558b0$56d00a10$@com>
In-Reply-To: <00a201cbe32a$724558b0$56d00a10$@com>

On 3/15/2011 11:02 AM, Teresa Elliott wrote:
> Darrell and Rick,
> First off, let me state, I do not disagree with anything you have said so
> far.<G>
> But let me ask a few questions that would need to be answered IF TMG were to
> allow multiple witnesses to a tag to be PRIMARY (let's not say principal,
> but rather we'd prefer them to be able to be PRIMARY to the tag)


You have fallen on the terminology sword
already. "Primary" is used in TMG for a
different purpose. In the "normal speech"
use of the word, I agree.

> How would charts work at that point? Part of only allowing two people to be
> PRIMARY to a tag, is that charts only have so much room.

Some Tag Types have hard-coded meanings
for the principal witness position(s).
If TMG were changed to allow for more
than two principal/primary person links
then some other way might have to be
found to select people for charts. I
don't think it would be necessary.

> While I would love
> to be able to make my 3rd great grandfather, his wife and all 11 children
> living with him primary to the tag and be able to add that census tag to a
> chart for each of them, currently I cannot do so. Only P1 and P2 can be
> primary. The chart only prints the census tag for P1 and P2.

For a census, this does not make any
sense to me. If one puts census data
onto a chart, why would you not want
to include everybody who is part of
the record? If that is too awkward
for a chart, why use a chart in that

I can see why the Head of Household
might be treated differently, but
for all others (I emphatically
include the possible spouse of the
HoH) there is no rational reason --
in my own approach to the data --
to limit the principal/primary
designation to one or two persons.

> There are lots of events where we all admit that it's difficult to pick who
> should be P1 and P2, and therefore have a primary tag of that type. Census,
> wills, deeds all come to mind. I have one deed where a woman's 6 children
> and spouses made a deed relinquishing their share of their mother's estate
> to two other children and their spouses. Who should be primary here?

That is the question, indeed.

> Now coming from UFT and having given birth, I do think the parents (the
> mother at least) should be a primary person in a birth tag of the children.

The Birth Tag Type is perhaps the best
argument for three or more principal/
primary person links in a Tag.

> I do think children's birth tags should print in parent's narratives and
> have jumped through a lot of hoops (attaching two parents to 16,000+ people)
> to get that to happen. Not only is having children a major life change, for
> most people it determines decisions they make and can lead to more research.

Preaching to the choir, lady....

> So I think for TMG to ever be able to accomplish what we are discussing, it
> would need to give up limits on number of people who can be PRIMARY (not P1
> or P2) to CUSTOM tags.

There is little question that the P1-P2
designation is so ingrained into TMG
and many of its loyal users' data that
it cannot be abandoned. What we may be
saying is that there is a need for P3+
-- or something like that.

> I am a witness
> to my grandfather's death tag. But I am not primary to that tag. I didn't
> die, he did.

That distinction would need to be
maintained. Certain Tags -- BMDB
and a few others, perhaps -- would
remain special cases.

> If a person wanted the burial tag to allow multiple people to be primary,
> they could always create it in the custom group.

Shouldn't be necessary.

> Pedigree charts use the relationship tag (not changing) and the marriage tag
> (not changing). What would change are how other tags are viewed.
> Now having said all that, that would take a complete rewrite of the TMG tag
> system.

I do not believe that is correct. The
existence of the History Tag shows us
that there is more flexibility in the
basic design than it might appear.

> None of it would GEDCOM to another program.

It could. No, not an easy programming
change, but there are ways. Again, the
History Tag does GEDCOM, as an "EVEN"
tag, IIRC.

> Are we sure this is a
> design change we'd want to spend programming time one when there are so many
> other features that we don't even have yet?

Yes, I am sure *I* want it. I don't
lose sleep over not having it.


This thread: