APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2004-01 > 1073025774


From: <>
Subject: RE: [APG] Name Registry?
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 22:44:31 -0800 (PST)
References: <48.2654629f.2d25b5df@aol.com> <000001c3d097$e938d1c0$0200a8c0@doctorwho>
In-Reply-To: <000001c3d097$e938d1c0$0200a8c0@doctorwho>


Jerry, I've been reading the debate about your proposal, and I think it
sounds not only useful, but simple enough to side-step the objections some
folks have been raising. I think I would prefer to use the SSN for those
few folks in my database who had one assigned, but for all the rest of
them, your proposed site sounds like it is worth doing the data input
work.

What sort of data input system are you considering? Just an online form,
or some way to extract the info from GEDCOMs?

Valorie


> Margaret,
>
> I appreciate your detailed and thoughtful response, but I can't really
> comment on its merits. I'm not proposing a framework to resolve such
> issues.
>
> I can certainly sympathize with your comment that "One of the biggest
> problems in genealogy is that people do not critically analysis their
> information." Many amateur genealogists, in a rush to find celebrities
> or royalty in their lineage, have made a mockery of the legitimate
> research process. I'm sure every professional on this list finds that
> situation appalling.
>
> Frankly, my proposal is not aimed at solving any profound genealogical
> problems. All it does is to provide a way to synchronize data contained
> in two physically independent databases (GEDCOMs specifically). It does
> so by assigning a unique identifier to the same person in each database.
> For example, if database #1 has a Margaret French, born 8 May 1812
> Rockville Illinois and database #2 also has a Margaret French, born 8
> May 1812, Rockville Illinois, both will share a unique identifier, say
> 805534278. This identifier does two things:
>
>
>
> 1.It indicates that the person listed in each database is the same
> person, not separate individuals.
> 2.It permits information from each database to be updated
> (synchronized) automatically without user intervention (i.e. once the
> identifier has been assigned, the genealogy application does not have to
> ask you if the Margaret French in each database is the same person every
> time you do an update).
>
>
>
> If the two Margaret French's are not the same person, then you have made
> a mistake assigning the same identifier to them. If the information
> about one or both Margaret French's is fabricated, it is invalid
> regardless of whether you have assigned an identifier or not. The
> identifier does not add or subtract from the credibility of the
> real-world information.
>
>
>
> If you do not have credible name and birth information for an
> individual, assigning an identifier is perilous. That's why I've
> suggested the combination of data as a safeguard (but not as a
> "solution" or substitute for logic). There is no absolute protection
> against mistakes or fraud, but I suspect that the odds of two different
> people actually having the same name, birth date, and birth place is
> very low; approaching zero. If someone can suggest better criteria, I'd
> be happy to use them.
>
>
>
> If you do not use a genealogy database or do not collaborate with other
> researchers, then my proposal has no value for you. It's only a way to
> share information between two databases without having to manually type
> the information into each one. After all, it seems silly to keep typing
> the same information into the computer when someone has already done it
> once.
>
>
>
> I'm getting the impression that those who understand my proposal think
> it's trivial, while those who don't think it's dangerous or impossible.
>
>
>
> Maybe it's only a problem for me. I'm collaborating with another
> researcher and want to keep our two databases updated with each others
> findings. Having spent many hours manually updating the databases and
> cleaning up afterwards, I'd like an easier, less error-prone approach. I
> thought I'd make the technology public so everyone could benefit from
> it, but there's no point if no one else has the problem.
>
>
>
> Is there an easier way for me to synchronize our databases and I'm just
> unaware of it? (I don't plan to switch to Legacy as a solution.)
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Jerry Fitzpatrick
>
> Software Renovation Corporation
>
>
>
> http://www.SoftwareRenovation.com <http://www.softwarerenovation.com/>;
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 11:42 AM
> To: ;
> Subject: Re: [APG] Name Registry?
>
>
>
> Maybe I am dim on how this will work but let me present a few actual
> cases here and perhaps you can tell me how you would resolve the problem
> within the frame work of what you propose.
>
>
>
> 1. Margaret French, the daughter of Daniel2 French and his first wife?
> Peyton married James Strother. I have seen the date of this marriage
> recorded as 1738 in data bases. I have also seen her mother named as
> Margaret Pratt who was her father's second wife.
>
> Neither the date of Margaret's marriage nor her mother is determined by
> a simple answer that will fit into a form field.
>
>
>
> Her marriage date is approximated as is the dates for the birth of her
> children. Margaret petitioned the court in June 1736 for her share of
> her father's estate. In November of the same year James her husband did
> the same thing. These petitions are recorded in the court order books.
> Therefore an accurate marriage date for the couple is between June 1736
> and November of 1736, while the specific year of 1738 is not at all
> accurate.
>
>
>
> Margaret's father was married to the widow of John Pratt at the time of
> his death but she was still married to John Pratt when her younger
> brother Daniel was born therefore Margaret could not have been her
> child.
>
>
>
> The fact that her mother was a Peyton is from a deed of gift of slaves,
> Daniel, her brother made to the daughter's of Henry Peyton whom he
> called his cousins. By deduction it is determined this term meant niece
> and had to be on the maternal side.
>
>
>
> So how would you enter this very precise information where there are no
> specific dates and lots of proof arguments?
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> Margaret R. Amundson, CGsm is a service mark of the Board for
> Certification of Genealogists, used under license by Board-certified
> associates after periodic proficiency evaluations.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==== APG Mailing List ====
> The Association of Professional Genealogists
> http://www.apgen.org/publications/apg-l/index.html



This thread: