nractive
commented
5 years ago Additions for cases of enslavement are certainly welcomed. I assume that these are supported by the Group and GroupRole data types (as possibly modified per discussions in Proposal: Group #321). Otherwise, these additions would be insufficient by themselves.
Regarding these new additions, some things puzzle me. I am having to do some mental contortions to try to fit my real-life example into pseudo-code using these additions. Here is a modified partial section of @stoicflame's earlier code:
Person:
name: Juliet
gender: Female
facts:
birth:
date: 1834
death:
date: 1867
emancipation: # A fact of the emancipation, manumission, escape or other route to freedom of a person who was previously enslaved.
date: 1865
Person:
name: Simon
gender: Male
facts:
birth:
date: 1853
death:
date: 1924
emancipation: #A fact of the emancipation, manumission, escape or other route to freedom of a person who was previously enslaved.
date: 1865
Person:
name: Malinda
facts:
Enslavement: #A fact of the enslavement of a person.
birth:
date: 1798
death:
date: 1874
Person:
name: Frank
gender: Male
facts:
birth:
date: 1820
death:
date: 1898
occupation: "Overseer"
Person:
name: Henry
Person:
name: Sarah
Relationship:
type: EnslavedBy: #A relationship from an enslaved person to the enslaver or slaveholder of the person.
person1: Juliet
person2: Malinda
facts:
Non-Consensual: #An indicator that the event occurred non-consensually, e.g. under enslavement.
begin:
date: 1834
end:
date: 1865
Relationship:
type: ParentChild
person1: Juliet
person2: Simon
facts:
Biological
Relationship:
type: ParentChild
person1: Frank
person2: Simon
facts:
Biological
sources: (DNA evidence, etc.)
Relationship:
type: Couple
person1: Frank
person2: Juliet
facts:
Non-Consensual: #An indicator that the event occurred non-consensually, e.g. under enslavement.
Group:
name: "Enslaved Population on Malinda Farm"
date: 1830 - 1865
role:
person: Malinda
details: "Slaveholder"
role:
person: Frank
details: "Overseer"
role:
person: Juliet
details: "Enslaved"
role:
person: Simon
details: "Enslaved"This might work, but it is not easy to follow. It just doesn't seem straightforward or complete.
A two-way relationship is implied with the EnslavedBy fact, but it can easily be confusing as to which, person1 or person2, is the slaveholder and which is the slave. Moreover, “EnslavedBy” to me is a one-sided reference (to the slaveholder) and not a term I would describe for a relationship.
“Emancipation” will likely not be interpreted to include other methods of reaching freedom. There needs to be a better term that is inclusive and still representative of the description. (I’ll seek suggestions from others.)
Great work so far, and very much appreciated.
stoicflame
The attached changes constitute enhancements to the spec to account for enslavement cases. Please refer to the group e-mail discussion for context.
Comments are welcome.
Known Fact Types: Additions
http://gedcomx.org/Enslavementhttp://gedcomx.org/RouteToFreedomKnown Relationship Types: Additions
http://gedcomx.org/EnslavedByKnown Fact Qualifiers: Additions
http://gedcomx.org/Transporthttp://gedcomx.org/NonConsensual