Jump to content


Photo

Parentage


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 jeohlson

jeohlson

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 11 October 2019 - 01:40 PM

The following statement is made in a published genealogy: "Metta was probably a daughter of Carsten Carstens...". How can I reflect this in RM7?



#2 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6284 posts

Posted 11 October 2019 - 01:55 PM

Only in a Personal Note for Metta or both Metta and Carsten or in the Spouse Note for Metta's Parents or in her Birth Note or in the Description or Note in a custom fact, possibly shared between Metta as Principal and each of her parents...

 

Another is to put the text into the Date field of some event and use SortDate to position it among the other dated events.


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 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3670 posts

Posted 11 October 2019 - 03:39 PM

The original question had to do with the best way to reflect uncertain parentage in RM. In truth, there is not a super good way to indicate such uncertainty in RM, and Tom provided good answers about what RM does offer.

 

In addition, I think that both RM and genealogy writ large have a problem entering parentage at all, certain or uncertain. The problem is that parentage is not really a fact, and hence there is not really a good place to attach evidence of parentage.

 

When I say parentage is not a fact, I mean that the data model for parentage is usually described as "lineage linked". This means that you put parents and children into families and parentage is indicated when a person is a child in a family and when other persons are parents in the same family. This manifests itself in RM's Edit Person screen as a line in the screen labelled Parents and which looks like a Parents fact. And you can attach sources to this line which looks like a Parents fact. But if you do, then the sources are attached to the family as a whole and not to the specific child-parent relationship for a  particular child. And indeed, for all practical purposes, the sources are attached to the parents and not to the child at all. There is no good place in RM's narrative reports for the citation superscript to appear for evidence of  parentage. And there is nothing in the data model that distinguishes evidence of parentage for one child from evidence of parentage for another child in the same family.

 

For these reasons, I have introduced a Parents fact into my database - a real fact, not something that's part of the lineage linked data model. I indicate uncertainty in Parentage with a note for the Parents fact.

 

Jerry

 



#4 Don Newcomb

Don Newcomb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1047 posts

Posted 12 October 2019 - 04:34 AM

I have a number of speculative parents attached at the end of my tree. Where someone said that they were or might be the parents but I'm not willing to accept it. I color code the uncertain parents in red and add all sorts of notes indicating that they are unproven.  In fact, I have whole lines color coded this way. 

 

RM does not give you a dashed line connection, which is what you're looking for. 



#5 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6284 posts

Posted 12 October 2019 - 05:11 AM

I've forgotten if there has been much prior discussion on lineage line style. At least one different style for non-blood parentage would be a welcome enhancement. Add a relationship type "Speculative" or a certainty modifier "Proven|Unproven" that affects the style.

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.


#6 KFN

KFN

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts

Posted 12 October 2019 - 08:05 AM

All,

One of the issues with a large number of genealogy software data models is that they are incomplete as they relate to recording data which forces many to “be creative”.

For myself and the reason I support using the GEDCOM v5.5.1 data model and potentially around v5.5.5 or some other well thought out “universal” model as a starting point for all program because, contrary to many people’s assertions, some of these problems are already resolved. Then enhancing the GEDCOM model based on needs of individual programs.

In GEDCOM, the FAMC tag in the Individual record has additional tags that, if incorporated in a simulate way in the RM data model, would allow the posters to better document their findings. Alas, it does not quite go far enough in my mind to solve the whole documentation question.

Here is the GEDCOM solution:

1 FAMS @family-pointer@
2 PEDI [adopted | birth | foster | sealing]
2 STAT [challenged | disproven | proven]
2 NOTE

I wish as part of this relationship structure they also included a tag for the Source-Citation to document the specific info about the relationship.

#7 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3670 posts

Posted 12 October 2019 - 09:13 AM

1 FAMS @family-pointer@
2 PEDI [adopted | birth | foster | sealing]
2 STAT [challenged | disproven | proven]
2 NOTE

I wish as part of this relationship structure they also included a tag for the Source-Citation to document the specific info about the relationship.

 

I have a bad habit sometimes of giving the GEDCOM standard less credit than it deserves. It's actually a much better data model than it sometimes seems. Of course, it would help if all genealogy software would fully embrace all aspects of the GEDCOM data model.  :)

 

In this case, my criticism of RM is in the vein that "parentage is not a fact, and therefore parentage doesn't have sources in RM". My bad habit is to generalize such criticism to GEDCOM. You are certainly correct that parentage could have sources without being a fact. But then GEDCOM would have to add such a source tag and genealogy software would universally have to support the added tag.

 

I do think the PEDI tag needs a few more options. Neither "adopted" nor "foster" seems to fit quite all the "raised by" situations. I have a number of situations in my fairly immediate family where somebody was "raised by" somebody other than their birth mother, and neither "adopted" nor "foster" seems quite accurate to describe the situation.

 

Jerry



#8 KFN

KFN

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts

Posted 12 October 2019 - 04:10 PM

Jerry,

“Fosterage” or Fostering is the right answer for “raised by” situation.

People mistakenly confuse the term “fostering” as used in western societies with the concept of “foster care” that can be organised by the state to care for children with troubled family backgrounds, which is usually done on a temporary basis.

Actually Fostering is a very old term, associate with children being raised by wealthy or influential people for political or social reasons. Quite often fosterage was used to begin a child in a trade, where the child would leave their parents and live with a tradesperson to learn the craft and the work they did would not receive payment except room and board.

Obviously this definition requires the reader to have knowledge of this use or you will get some blow back!

#9 cvernons

cvernons

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7 posts

Posted 13 October 2019 - 10:04 PM

If I understand jeohlson's question correctly then Rootsmagic 7 does offer a limited method to indicate this status.  Try these steps and see if it answers your need:

 

1.  Enter Metta as a daughter of Carsten Carstens with as much fact/data element information as you wish to record.  Save.the record.

2.  Open this new Metta Carstens child in 'Edit person' mode.

3.  Highlight the 'PARENTS' data element above the Facts grid.

4.  Now set the Mother and Father Relationship flags (found in the PARENTS box that appeared to the right when you highlighted the PARENTS data element in step #3) to "UNKNOWN"

5.  You can also set the Mother and Father Proof flags to "DISPUTED"

 

These settings will apply only to the Metta child for these parents.  All other Carsten Carstens children will reflect their previous data settings in these two flags.

 

Hope this helps!

 

YITB,

Craig



#10 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3670 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 05:35 AM

If I understand jeohlson's question correctly then Rootsmagic 7 does offer a limited method to indicate this status.  Try these steps and see if it answers your need:

 

These steps do work as indicated. However, they don't really do anything. The information is not printed in any RM reports. The information is not searchable, including that it is not found by Find Everywhere. The information cannot be used for color coding or making groups or anything like that. The information is really only "for your information", and you have to know to go looking for it.

 

Jerry



#11 kbens0n

kbens0n

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3464 posts

Posted 14 October 2019 - 02:24 PM

The following statement is made in a published genealogy: "Metta was probably a daughter of Carsten Carstens...". How can I reflect this in RM7?


Add a Description fact to Metta.
In the Description field of that Description fact enter "probably a daughter of Carsten Carstens...".
Optionally, click upon Proof: and select Disputed.
Optionally enter Date: , Place: , Place details: and observe how sentence will be written (lower right pane) by RootsMagic.
Enter a Sort date: that places the fact either first in the individual's list of facts or just beneath the Birth fact or Christening fact (if used in it's stead).

---
--- "GENEALOGY, n. An account of one's descent from an ancestor who did not particularly care to trace his own." - Ambrose Bierce
--- "The trouble ain't what people don't know, it's what they know that ain't so." - Josh Billings
---Ô¿Ô---
K e V i N