APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2004-01 > 1073008251


From:
Subject: Re: [APG] Re: Name Registry?
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 20:50:51 EST


Jerry, I would argue that until you're reasonably sure about the person to
whom an assertion should be attached, it's more important to keep the name and
the data associated with its source. For that purpose, it seems cleaner to give
the unique identifier to the known data set and source (persona), rather than
to a presumptive new individual, in a case where attaching the assertion to
an already-known person is possible but still uncertain.

I have a file folder full of assertions about 18th-century married women
named Martha Drake (most without a clue to a birth surname) from southern New York
and northern New Jersey. At least three different women are necessary to
account for all the persona involved, but whether there are more than three is not
clear enough to justify assigning facts to just those three. While it could
be done without conflict, it would be an unwarranted presumption. Meanwhile,
the data sets need to be kept separate, and identified with their sources
rather than an indeterminate number of subject individuals.

Donn Devine

Jerry wrote:

> When the evidence is meager and/or ambiguous, the right thing to do is to
> assume multiple individuals (and therefore separate personas). I'd argue
> that this is the minority case, along the ambiguity no doubt increases as
> you delve further into the past.

This thread: