Jump to content


Photo

Use of datagroups/datasets


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 J.O. Sellereite

J.O. Sellereite

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7 posts

Posted 03 November 2007 - 08:25 PM

A problem solely known in genealogy is that much information in sources might be uncertain or sometimes directly unreliable. In the same manner it has been written many times in this forum that people feel uncertain to import Gedcom files because of the risk of importing a lot of unreliable information into their database. When going back in time there even might be a risk that you register people you maybe are not related to at all.

A way of fixing this problem is to introduce use of datagroups or datasets. With this I mean a way to split up your database (Persons, places, sources) into different groups according to the quality of the information. This functionality is today part of another genealogy software (The Master Genealogist), but Rootsmagic is my preferred because of it's user-friendlines smile.gif , and I would really appreciate this functionality in Rootsmagic.

Tecnically it will mean having an extra table in the database where you define your groups. You might then create groups for solid information and groups for more unreliable information. On the persons editdialog there could be a combobox which let you select which datagroup you want the person to belong to. The same might probably be done to places and sources too.

What can this be used for. In the reports there could be a possebility to select which datagroups you want to include into the reports. By this way you can more easily exclude uncertain persons from your reports. Like in today's Rootsmagic I feel unsure whether I should register uncertain persons or not, because every person, uncertain or not will appear in the reports. In principle I mean that in the purpose of research it should be possible in a genealogy software to register every possible persons.

When doing an import of a gedcom file there could be a possebility of selecting or define a new datagroup to where you want to import the information. In this way you will have a logical and safe isolation of the gedcom file. You can then choose to move certain people into other datagroups according to your research. To remove all the person from the gedcom file would simply mean to delete the datagroup.

With the use of datagroups it will of course also be needed for filtering persons according to datagroups in the name list (Rootsmagic explorer).


Jon Oddvar Sellereite

#2 Kevin Wornell

Kevin Wornell

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 11:15 AM

QUOTE(J.O. Sellereite @ Nov 3 2007, 09:25 PM) View Post

A problem solely known in genealogy is that much information in sources might be uncertain or sometimes directly unreliable. In the same manner it has been written many times in this forum that people feel uncertain to import Gedcom files because of the risk of importing a lot of unreliable information into their database. When going back in time there even might be a risk that you register people you maybe are not related to at all.

A way of fixing this problem is to introduce use of datagroups or datasets. With this I mean a way to split up your database (Persons, places, sources) into different groups according to the quality of the information. This functionality is today part of another genealogy software (The Master Genealogist), but Rootsmagic is my preferred because of it's user-friendlines smile.gif , and I would really appreciate this functionality in Rootsmagic.

Tecnically it will mean having an extra table in the database where you define your groups. You might then create groups for solid information and groups for more unreliable information. On the persons editdialog there could be a combobox which let you select which datagroup you want the person to belong to. The same might probably be done to places and sources too.

What can this be used for. In the reports there could be a possebility to select which datagroups you want to include into the reports. By this way you can more easily exclude uncertain persons from your reports. Like in today's Rootsmagic I feel unsure whether I should register uncertain persons or not, because every person, uncertain or not will appear in the reports. In principle I mean that in the purpose of research it should be possible in a genealogy software to register every possible persons.

When doing an import of a gedcom file there could be a possebility of selecting or define a new datagroup to where you want to import the information. In this way you will have a logical and safe isolation of the gedcom file. You can then choose to move certain people into other datagroups according to your research. To remove all the person from the gedcom file would simply mean to delete the datagroup.

With the use of datagroups it will of course also be needed for filtering persons according to datagroups in the name list (Rootsmagic explorer).
Jon Oddvar Sellereite



#3 Kevin Wornell

Kevin Wornell

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 11:27 AM

I agree with the idea that we should be able to add some sort of indicatation of the 'weight' we give the credibility of specific pieces of information. A way to allow the user to indicate that a certain fact is unproven, proven only through secondary sources, or is inferred from other data would be nice.

Many times I will include a person or fact in my database even though it is not proven simply to keep it with the other proven facts for that family or individual. Then as I go about my research the unproven fact or relationship is recorded and I can refer to it as needed. Doing this has greatly reduced the number of notes I have to keep up with on Uncle Jim might have had 4 kids instaed of 3, or John was born here or there kind of thing. I simply add the notes to the database, but there is no easy way to go back and pull the 'unproven' stuff out.

I think even a simple checkbox for proven or unproven on each fact or relationship would be a step forward. Then we could generate lists of facts that we consider unproven for future research.



#4 Alfred

Alfred

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5734 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 12:57 PM

There is a selection box in the source citation for the reliability of a source.

Primary, Secondary, Questionable and Unreliable.

A person's name and Birth date on the original or a registered copy of a birth certificate would probably be Primary.
His name and birth date in a relatively new Bible, along with all of his siblings information,written with the same pen would probably be secondary, (It was copied from somewhere)
Anything found on the internet, I would rate as questionable.
Gossip and rumors would be unreliable.

The information isn't rated, only the source of that information, which lets a person judge how likely it is that the information is correct.
Alfred

#5 Vyger

Vyger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2363 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 02:04 PM

QUOTE(Alfred @ Nov 8 2007, 06:57 PM) View Post

There is a selection box in the source citation for the reliability of a source.

Primary, Secondary, Questionable and Unreliable.

A person's name and Birth date on the original or a registered copy of a birth certificate would probably be Primary.
His name and birth date in a relatively new Bible, along with all of his siblings information,written with the same pen would probably be secondary, (It was copied from somewhere)
Anything found on the internet, I would rate as questionable.
Gossip and rumors would be unreliable.

The information isn't rated, only the source of that information, which lets a person judge how likely it is that the information is correct.



I like the original posters idea and it is particular to genealogy. As I was reading through the thread I was thinking along the idea of some sort bof selection box along the line of what Alfred pointed out and exists in sources.

This could be applied to any fact/event or even the relationship of the person to a particular family. I very reluctantly link people unless 99.9% certain and have a custom fact that I scribble notes into about my thoughts and hunches. The problem is until they are proven 100% they are just lying around somewhere in the database so something along these lines would be very useful.


Software Comparisons - Place Management - How other software packages stack up.
Media Gallery (a critical look) - Written when RM4 was introduced but still applies today.

Relaxation is the key to life and this is where I get some time to relax and catch up on my hobby and research s the key to life and this is where I get some time to catch up on me genealogy work and research


#6 MVS

MVS

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 307 posts

Posted 09 November 2007 - 10:20 AM

One idea that might also be useful is if, in the dialog box showing facts/events for each individual, we were able to select what level of facts were diaplyed; this could be by some sort of check box or slider at the top of the box.

If it were a 'slider' it would then be possible to 'slide' between 'show me everything' to 'show me primary only', and the various stages in between.

It would then be easy to see what one really knew about an individual and what might need a lot more work/research.

Also - when exporting GEDCOMS or producing reports; could we not just select the level of event/facts to export or report on. So we could choose, depending on the purpose, whether we showed everything or filtered to a much higher level of quality.