From: ttw@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (thomas.t.wetmore..iv)
Subject: Parents, Spouses, Children (was: Re: PAF tricks)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 17:03:57 GMT

As a provider and long time user of genealogical software, here are
some comments on what I think the proper approach to relationships in
genealogical systems should be.  Let me warn you, in case my usual
critics don't, that I am an arrogant, crusty old fart, and these
opinions should be treated as strictly personal.

1. The biological, genetic relationship of parent to child is the
preeminent relationship in genealogical research.

2. The relationship of two people, of opposite sex, in or out of
wedlock, who do the kinds of things that may result in a relationship
of the first kind, is the next most important relationship.

3. These two relationships account for such a high percentage of all
relationships required by genealogical research, that they must be
handled completely and intrinsically by your software system.  And, in
my very strong opinion, whatever underlying mechanism your system provides
for handling lineage linking, it should be reserved exclusively for these
two relationships.  Of course, things are rarely what they appear, and
this may easily lead to mistakes.  But that's what genealogical research
is, in my opinion, discovering these relationships.  In
other words, I disagree with using a family record for a homosexual
union, and I disagree with using a parent relationship to record an
adoption relationship.  I put no value judgements on these two
relationships, and do not disagree that these are important
genealogical relationships, but I don't believe they should be recorded
using the normal lineage mechanisms.

4. All other relationships (eg, homosexual unions, adoption, surrogate,
foster, ward, ...) that cannot be inferred from the first two (note that
all step, in-law, and half relationships can), should be provided by linking
records together by add-on relationships using mechanisms supplied by your
software system.  If you have a low power system you may have to relegate
this kind of relationship information to the notes sections of the
records, and duplicate the information in two or more records.  If you
can't even do this with your software, then frankly, there is nothing
anybody can say that can help you out (except, of course, to upgrade
to a better system).

5. If you have a low-power system, this may make it hard for you to do
certain things (a good example is having adoptive children show up in
family group sheets), and all I can say is that I sympathize with your
problem, and commiserate with you that the state of genealogical
software is abysmal.  But I would still ask you not to bend the rules
of lineage-linking to expedite your problems, as it will cause further
problems for the researchers who come after you.  Of course, I respect
your right to do anything you want.

6. When evaluating new software systems, I would recommend that
you explore whether or not the systems support the kinds of
flexibility required to support add-on relationships.

7. And finally, mea culpa, as my own software system does not yet provide
what I believe to be adequate or even required flexibility for this
stuff.

Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holiday Season to All.  Many thanks for
all the help and good will found in this group throughout the past
year.

Tom
====================================================================
Thomas T. Wetmore IV, AT&T Bell Laboratories, (508)960-6015 (work)
ttw@petrel.att.com                            (508)465-3220 (home)
====================================================================
WETMORE (1660-1992:Ct>World)    WHITMORE (1300-1660:Eng>Ct)
HANCOCK (1800-1950:Md>Ct)       BROWN    (1780-1900:Vt>Wi)
KANEEN  (1700-1900:IoM>Ct)      TRASK    (1580-1820:Eng>NS)
ESCOTT  (1700-1900:Nfld)        HARVEY   (1700-1900:Scot>Ire>NS>Wi)
EDMUNDS (1700-1835:Wales)       KISSACK  (1600-1850:IoM)
====================================================================
"Beware of any enterprise that requires new clothes." -- h.d.thoreau
====================================================================