Jump to content


Photo

Medical, DNA, Witnesses, Friends, Pets, Places, Venues and views.


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 daragon24

daragon24

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 14 July 2017 - 10:00 PM

I know these requests would likely come in the form of a new upgrade, perhaps to a RootsMagic 8 or something, but may as well request them while the iron is hot right? My requests are more or less to expand RootsMagic to gain an even greater perspective of our families and their associations, extended families, the places they lived, worked and frequented. My suggestions would also make RootsMagic more attractive to other Specialized studies such as One Place and such.

1. Medical and DNA- I believe the Medical and DNA abilities could be improved upon greatly and modernized to include Medical facts and expand upon DNA, including the ability to link to add SNPs.

2. Witnesses and Friends- Basically the ability to add people not related, but important to ancestors in their lives. This would not only aid in expanding on the story of ancestors, but also aid in research.

3. Pets- Well why not? Pets are considered family by many people and why not include them?

4. Places and Venues- Places being the locality and Venues being like a business. The places played very important roles to our ancestors and should have their own stories recorded alongside our ancestors.

5. Views- The views we have available to us at the moment can be a headache when it comes to research. I would like the option of a view akin to Ancestry, FTM, or Family Tree Builder in which you go up the tree from the root person, rather than the sideways view and the other views it already has. Keep those, just add this one as well.



#2 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6251 posts

Posted 15 July 2017 - 08:19 AM

2. Shared Events already supports witness roles for both people in the database and names of people not being tracked in the db.

3. You could add a pet as a person but leave it unlinked to the family or linked as "other" relationship. The pet could be a "witness" to the humans' events. Or you could add a pet as a Miscellaneous or custom fact to a person and the date could be its lifespan, the Description could hold its breed and name, and the Note a story.

4. How do Places and Venues differ from the current Places and Place Details? Enhanced reporting from the latter is a long outstanding request.

Tom user of RM7550 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> RMtrix-tiny.png app, a bundle of RootsMagic utilities.


#3 daragon24

daragon24

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 15 July 2017 - 08:51 AM

TomH,

 

Looks like I may have overlooked some features of RootsMagic. Thanks for the suggestions I will try those out.



#4 RobJ

RobJ

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 posts

Posted 15 July 2017 - 02:37 PM

A comment about the DNA support - personal trees are not near as well suited to DNA usage as large publicly shared trees, those with full support for all DNA test results.  They automatically propagate those results to the appropriate profiles.  DNA is made for comparisons, for matching, and to be useful needs a large user base.  It's my belief that the growing popularity of DNA testing is going to be shifting more and more people with personal trees over to the large shared public trees in the future.  That doesn't mean the end of tools like RootsMagic, as it should still be an important link in the chain, a connector between data sources, and a manager of your personal copy of the part of the big tree you're most interested in.  I'd like to see it move in the direction of providing the user interface to such trees, particularly a tree like WikiTree, that's weak in the data entry and easy sourcing aspects of genealogy.

 

Certainly you could try to manage test results in your tree, but there's little you can do with only a very few tests done.  Autosomal testing is good for finding possible matches within roughly 6 generations or degrees away, and for that it's really hard to compete with the established autosomal testing companies, like Ancestry.com or the others on Geni and WikiTree using GEDmatch, etc.  yDNA and mtDNA testing is great for tracing paternal, surname, and maternal lines back, although they are much better for rejecting lines than confirming lines.  With autosomal tests, results are always gray, a statistical match that you may decide is good enough or not good enough for proof.  With yDNA and mtDNA, if haplogroups match, it's good evidence but not absolute proof, but if they don't match, it's absolute proof of error or non-biological parentage somewhere.  All of these are much more feasible in a large database than in a personal tree.  You need lots of testers, you never have enough testers.

 

So it's my belief that any effort at supporting DNA features would best be put into integration with DNA supporting public trees.



#5 zhangrau

zhangrau

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1518 posts

Posted 15 July 2017 - 03:20 PM

I believe that most consumers should be VERY WARY of publishing & linking living family members to DNA info. Our legislators seem especially uneducated (and unconcerned?) about the potential privacy risks. Will insurance companies find a way to access these public trees and use that info as criteria to set higher rates for those individuals they consider to be a higher risk? If there are ANY genetically-linked conditions in your family, are you really OK with that?



#6 RobJ

RobJ

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 posts

Posted 15 July 2017 - 06:20 PM

This is just my opinion, and I will certainly respect all other opinions.

 

I've looked at this issue to some extent, and so far I'm unconvinced of any risks, at least to me.  I'd go so far as to say I believe the risks have been blown completely out of proportion, by certain writers who make money off writing scary stories.

 

There are extensive access and privacy controls on DNA data, by both the testing companies, and by comparison sites, and by genealogical sites that support DNA matching.  You have to jump through hoops, and pass numerous privacy warnings, just to get access to your very own DNA data.  I can't imagine how you could possibly legitimately access anyone else's data.  And once you have it, you upload it to a high security site like GEDmatch, which assigns an ID to you, and that ID is the only connection anyone can have to it.  That ID is the only thing saved on genealogical sites, and you don't have any access to the actual data associated with anyone else's ID.  If someone knows of a hole in GEDmatch's security, tell them about it, and they will close it.

 

If you agree, the testing companies may allow controlled access by researchers, to the data.  I don't see a real risk in this, only benefits.

 

I've uploaded my DNA data to GEDmatch, and exposed my ID's and kit numbers on WikiTree and Geni.com, and I have no concerns at all.  I cannot even imagine what anyone could do with mine, even if they did have all of the raw data too.  But I understand others are concerned, and they may want to wait and see if any real and documented abuses do occur.



#7 zhangrau

zhangrau

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1518 posts

Posted 15 July 2017 - 08:36 PM

There are lots or articles out there about DNA testing and secure storage of data. Here's three I found interesting and informative:

 

The Use and Potential Abuse of DNA Analysis in Immigration
by Sarah Beaverson, The Kenan Institure for Ethics
The article is undated, but the bibliography surces are all from 2014.
 
 
Forensic DNA Databanks and Privacy of Information
Pulished as chapter 5 in  DNA Technology in Forensic Science (1992)
The National Academies Press
I don't see any author or date indication on this article
The bibliography has dates ranging from 1977 to 1990
 
 
Ancestry.com Allegedly Caught Sharing Customer DNA Data With Police
By Jay Syrmopoulos - May 5, 2015
This appears to be an opinion piece supported by anecdotal evidence. There is no bibliography.