Open nilsbrummond opened 12 years ago
After #182 is finished and merged, I'd do it like this:
2-3 I can't comment in detail since I've lost track of what's what or what/where the latest model is. John's example sounds about right but personally I would want some form of evidence link between each of the Persons and each of the relevant SourceDescriptions before I attempted to analyse the whole caboodle in a single "EA1"
4-5. Are assumed to be within the verbatim text of the evidence link(s)
personally I would want some form of evidence link between each of the Persons and each of the relevant SourceDescriptions before I attempted to analyse the whole caboodle in a single "EA1"
The evidence analysis is the evidence link: It's the proof argument that demonstrates that the evidence applies to the Persons. Having it in between sources and the conclusions is the major feature that puts GedcomX in compliance with the GPS. It can also describe what has been searched and what was or was not found, thus covering the requirement of a "reasonably exhaustive search".
Yes I know that John but your example implied that there would be a single which linked all the sources to the person ... all I was saying is that I (as a researcher) would personally also want to have pairings of a single source/person.
It can also describe what has been searched and what was or was not found, thus covering the requirement of a "reasonably exhaustive search".
That's a bit like saying you can shove anything in the text so therefore it supports anything.
I don't believe GEDCOM X really provides any features to help the researcher define, organise or analyse their goals, searches or search results.
@EssyGreen
That's a bit like saying you can shove anything in the text so therefore it supports anything.
I don't believe GEDCOM X really provides any features to help the researcher define, organise or analyse their goals, searches or search results.
I agree.
And give the first line of the wiki page:
GEDCOM X defines an open data model and an open serialization format for exchanging the components of the genealogical proof standard.
I think GEDCOM X needs to support all of the components of the GPS before it can be called complete and meet the definition on the wiki.
I think GEDCOM X needs to support all of the components of the GPS before it can be called complete and meet the definition on the wiki
+1
That's a bit like saying you can shove anything in the text so therefore it supports anything.
Says the woman who's argued extensively for shoving everything into text. ;-)
I don't believe GEDCOM X really provides any features to help the researcher define, organise or analyse their goals, searches or search results.
Defining, organizing, and analyzing goals goes a bit beyond the GPS and while it would make an attractive feature in a genealogy program, I'm not sure that it belongs in a standard aimed at exchanging results.
Search is another matter, at least to the extent of documenting what's been searched, and I can see an automated use case: Interacting with programs like Gensmarts. Why don't you open an issue and propose a structure?
Says the woman who's argued extensively for shoving everything into text
Context is everything ;) I actually argued for allowing free form text instead of having to code up every different type of fact etc. That's a bit different to just lumping chunks of the whole process into a text field :)
Defining, organizing, and analyzing goals goes a bit beyond the GPS and while it would make an attractive feature in a genealogy program, I'm not sure that it belongs in a standard aimed at exchanging results.
My bad - I (wrongly) assumed we were talking about the process - I forgot GEDCOM X is only interested in the proof standard
Search is another matter [...] Why don't you open an issue and propose a structure?
I did, many moons ago - see #141
I did, many moons ago - see #141
Meaning ToDo?
I think that got lost in a rather wide-ranging discussion. It does bleed a bit into goal-setting, but maybe you should try again with it as its own issue.
I agree it got lost but I'm not sure beating people over the head with the same stuff by re-creating new issues will make it any more likely to be accepted. I prefer to tackle it from another angle ... like this one here :)
My first take at an object diagram from how I understand things now.
Note: The extract evidence should be optional.
Questions:
Document
will need to have a SourceDescription
object paired with it?Document
and SourceDescription
object needed between source1
and it's extracted evidence?GPS1-Source
and GPS1
objects be swapped in position, so that GPS1.sources={source1-source6} and GPS1-Source.sources={GPS1}, Remove GPS1
from the GPS1-Source
.exctactedConclusions, and GPS1-Source
.about={GPS1}?New object diagram show "yes" answered to my last three questions...
I saw a request for use cases somewhere in the www.gedcomx.org website. So here goes:
Front page of the wiki (https://github.com/FamilySearch/gedcomx/wiki) first line:
I'm having a hard time figuring out how the results of a simple GPS activity will be model in GEDCOMX based on the current conceptual model spec or #182.
First what is a good simple sample GPS activity for a basic use case? How about "John Smith [HYPOTHETICAL CASE]" page 36 of "GPS - Building a solid Case" by Rose.
Question: was John Smith the son of William Smith?
Five steps of GPS:
What would the object model look like to describe the outcome of this basic GPS activity?