XPost: soc.genealogy.computing, soc.genealogy.misc, alt.genealogy   
   XPost: soc.history   
   From: hayesstw@telkomsa.net   
      
   On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 11:38:27 +0000, Ian Goddard   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 22/03/17 01:25, Steve Hayes wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:38:05 +0000, Ian Goddard   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 21/03/17 11:25, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:   
   >>>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:57:34 +0200, Steve Hayes   
   >>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:57:10 +0000, Ian Goddard   
   >>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> As a final comment I'd suggest that we should be treating this as   
   >>>>>> *evidence*-based genealogy, not event-based.  For instance a single   
   >>>>>> record which describes the baptism of John, the posthumous son of   
   >>>>>> William Brown is evidence of 3 events, the birth and baptism of John and   
   >>>>>> the death of William.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> It depends on your point of view.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I am more interested in the events in the life of a person, than in   
   >>>>> the documents that provide evidence of it.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> To me genealogy is name, date and place of birth, date and place of   
   >>>> death and where buried. Everything else is family history. And most   
   >>>> people, including me, include it. But I don't see family history as   
   >>>> the prime reason for a genealogy program. There needs to be an option   
   >>>> for those who do.   
   >>>   
   >>> If you don't care for the evidence genealogy becomes absurdly easy.  You   
   >>> can simply write your own to get back to Adam, Wodin or whoever takes   
   >>> your fancy.   
   >>   
   >> No one is disputing the need for evidence.   
   >>   
   >> The point here is making sense of the events of the life of a person,   
   >> family or community, whatever the evidence.   
   >>   
   >> You keep going on about a "paper trail" as if the paper is more   
   >> important than thebn information contained in it.   
   >>   
   >> When someone who was a work colleage of my wife's third cousin once   
   >> removed, and tells about something that happened to him at work, what   
   >> is more important -- the date of the event in the person's life, or   
   >> the date on which I committed the information received in the phone   
   >> call to paper?   
   >>   
   >> What if I made a note on my computer, and only printed it on paper a   
   >> couple of years later? You seem to be saying that the date of the   
   >> printout is more important than the date of the event in the person's   
   >> life.   
   >>   
   >   
   >Actually I never mentioned a paper trail except in reply to Denis who   
   >introduced the term.  I mentioned evidence.  If someone tells you   
   >something that's evidence.  If someone tells you something that someone   
   >else told them it becomes hearsay.  Transmit verbally a few more steps   
   >and it becomes legend and hey-ho, keep the legend going and we're all   
   >descended from Wodin or Edward III or whoever.  If it was said record it   
   >so someone in the future has access to what was said at the time.   
   >Several of my local history group specialise in recording older people's   
   >recollection.   
   >   
   >The best evidence is what was recorded as close to the event as   
   >possible.  The further it's removed in time the more likely it is that   
   >recollection is clouded* or that what's recorded is an interpretation   
   >influenced by stuff that happened subsequently.  That's why in court   
   >police witnesses get quizzed about how promptly they wrote stuff down in   
   >their notebooks.  It's also why, over in s.g.medieval, they place great   
   >reliance on finding contemporary evidence of events.   
   >   
   >If you don't have good evidence of the event you don't have good   
   >knowledge of exactly what the event was.  Take, for instance, what you   
   >see on IGI.  It's been posted via GEDCOM which has no facility at all   
   >for passing on what was in the original register; what you get is   
   >someone's interpretation of what they thought they read which, if you   
   >consult an image of the original, is at best deficient in detail and at   
   >worst WRONG**.   
   >   
   >So why not make provision for an image of the original record or a   
   >direct transcription if they're available?  That way you can refer back   
   >an make sure that your reconstruction of an event is actually consistent   
   >with the evidence.   
   >   
   >* Heraldic visitations are classic examples of clouded recollection and   
   >defective oral transmission.  They can give pedigrees going back many   
   >generations so record things a long time after the actual event.  There   
   >are a couple of visitations listing the children of a John Kay of the   
   >late C14th.  They both list 6 legitimate sons, one includes an   
   >illegitimate son John.  Both agree on the names of the first 5   
   >legitimate sons, including a legitimate John.  One gives the name of the   
   >last son as James, the other as Jenkin.  Jenkin isn't a convincing   
   >variant of James, it's a variant of John.  Does it refer to the   
   >illegitimate son of the other visitation?  Was there a second legitimate   
   >John (duplication of names wasn't unknown, even when both survived)?   
   >How many legitimate sons were there, 6 or 7?   
   >   
   >**An example:  GEDCOM - or any other representation which formalises the   
   >source material - does not represent the order in which names were   
   >given.  An illegitimate child is often recorded in the register with the   
   >mother's name first and the father's second, the child's surname may not   
   >be included but in later life is often the mother's.  I've seen   
   >registers which recorded legitimate children with the father's name   
   >first followed by the mother's /maiden/ name.  Anyone simply seeing this   
   >after it's been filtered through GEDCOM or the like will likely treat   
   >the child as illegitimate.   
   >   
   >Another example I've given before:   
   >What the register said: Wife of John Goddard Ch   
   >What IGI said: Baptism - Christiana wife of John Goddard   
   >What it actually meant [Mary] wife of John Goddard Ch[urched] (some of   
   >the pages are actually headed "Baptisms and churchings").   
      
   I've changed the subject line, since what you asre talking about   
   really belongs in a different thread.   
      
   I still use the Research Data Filer that came with early versions of   
   PAF. I've found no other software like it for keeping track of   
   evidence. Unfortunately no one has seen fit to update it.   
      
   It doesn't do what you suggest -- ie make copies of every document,   
   but it does help o9ne to keep track of it.   
      
      
   --   
   Steve Hayes   
   http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm   
   http://khanya.wordpress.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)