🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 02:49:14 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:08:02 +0100, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:21:28 +0100, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk>
>>> wrote:

>>>> Of course the better way to do this is to have a genealogical program 
>>>> handle document references and current filing reference.  That, to me, 
>>>> makes a lot more sense than splitting the functionality over two 
>>>> different applications.

>>> There isn't such a program at the moment,

>>Maybe true (but we'll review that in a moment) although there's a 
>>possibility that there may be something neither you nor I have seen.

>>> and, and I'm not sure that it's a good idea. You might as well ask your genealogy program to handle all your
>>> wordprocessing and calculating needs as well, but a stand-alone word processor
>>> and spread sheet would do it better. 

>>Not really.  Wordprocessing & calculating aren't part of genealogy. 
>>Keeping track of genealogical records is.  AFAICS RDF and Legacy must be 
>>  duplicating a good deal of person information.

>>But let's review whether existing programs can do this.

>>I use GRAMPS.  If I add a document as a source against an event or a 
>>person (and the same source can be linked to as many events and people 
>>as needed) it will automatically be allocated an ID (by default the 
>>letter S for source) and a serial.  On the source form there is a Data 
>>tab.  If I click on that I can add a data item.  That offers me the 
>>option of entering a key/value pair.  I could enter "Location" as the 
>>key and the filing reference as the value.  If I were subsequently to 
>>reorganise the filing I could go to each source as it gets refiled and 
>>update the location.

>>It's a bit of a long winded way of doing things as opposed to having a 
>>dedicated file-location field.  Nevertheless it does what you're doing 
>>with two separate apps which sounds even more long-winded.  But it still 
>>doesn't do word processing ;)

>But I generally try to keep unrelated people out of my main genealogy file,
>and I don't want to create person records for them there. But if I eventually
>find proof of relationship, I want to be able to find the documents where I've
>seen their names before. 

That bears some resemblance to how I like to work.  Recently I traced
one line back into Prussia, but ended with over a century of extracted
church records for the same surname from IGI that I can't (yet) relate
to the known ancestors.  They are obviously a very large and very
interrelated bunch of people in a small geographical area, so I've put
them aside into a separate file of shrubs and bushes, no trees,  from
which I can pull them up with their connections if I ever discover a
link to my knowns.
-- 
Don
donsgenes@charter.net