Recording of a shared Residence, possible applies to other facts #new
|
Daewar
Hi,
What is the best way to record a shared residence(This possibly applies to other facts)? From memory & when I was using Roots Magic, I believe the advice was to create a separate entry for a shared event, as I have done here on the second line in bold text. Is this still required as its extra work and I'm wondering if its necessary? Please see example below. BTW, this is a fantastic free resource: https://www.badseysociety.uk/ Thank you Education: 10 Apr 1923 (age 5) Infant Department; Badsey, Worcestershire, England(*3) Address: Badsey School
Residence: 10 Apr 1923 (age 5) Badsey, Worcestershire, England(*3) Address: Bowers Hill
Son: 10 Apr 1923 (age 5) Francis George CHAMBERLAIN was a Son at Residence of Arthur Henry CHAMBERLAIN on 10 April 1923 in Badsey, Worcestershire, England https://www.badseysociety.uk/school/registers/47258 |
|
|
|
One of the FH time savers I use in this respect is the copy&paste fact. On Sun, 12 Mar 2023, 11:48 Daewar, <darren@...> wrote: Hi, |
|
|
|
One of the failings of Gedcom is that it doesn't allow/accommodate witnesses, one of the huge benefits of Family Historian is that it does. I believe it important to record the fact that two (or more) people lived in the same house or as neighbours, or attended the same event or were beneficiaries in a person's will, etc, etc. This is all part of the "Genealogical Proof" and of the wider "Family and Social History". I suggest that the best and most "rounded" way of doing this is to use witnesses to an event.
So in your example, I would have a Residence fact for Arthur Henry Chamberlain and record the infant Francis George as a witness to that fact with the role of "Son". This then not only links the two in the same residence at the same time but also provides direct evidence for the familial relationship. I find this facility of witnesses extremely useful, I have several instance of children recorded in the census as neighbours in adjacent addresses who have gone on to marry and I'm not sure I would have made the connection without this tool. |
|
|
|
Bob, Interesting times to come, you are correct Gedcom never accommodated Witness events but now it does. Many programs used and accepted the SHAR construct which allowed fro GEDCOM transfer of Witness events between several programs. Now Rootsmagic have sold an ASSOCIATION feature which as far as I can tell is just Witness Events under a different name. However GEDCOM does now use the ASSO tag within the standard and the last version of FH included support for GEDCOM 7. I can't find any definitive reading on this, except the standard, but I do wonder if all those vendors who previously used the SHAR construct will now write GEDCOM files using the ASSO tag instead? Jackson On Sun, 12 Mar 2023, 12:33 Bob Hunter, <rmwhunter@...> wrote: One of the failings of Gedcom is that it doesn't allow/accommodate witnesses, one of the huge benefits of Family Historian is that it does. I believe it important to record the fact that two (or more) people lived in the same house or as neighbours, or attended the same event or were beneficiaries in a person's will, etc, etc. This is all part of the "Genealogical Proof" and of the wider "Family and Social History". I suggest that the best and most "rounded" way of doing this is to use witnesses to an event. |
|
|
|
Strictly speaking, it is the _SHAR tag for Shared Fact Witnesses that is the de facto standard supported by several products.
GEDCOM 5.5 and 5.5.1 have always supported an ASSOciated person tag at the record level.
GEDCOM 7 has extended that ASSOCIATION_STRUCTURE and now uses the ASSO tag for Associated/Shared Fact witnesses. However, the subsidiary ROLE tag only allows a specified set of values such as WITN, CLERGY, PARENT, CHIL, etc. The OTHER value allows a subsidiary PHRASE tag to define other relationships. So current products cannot simply replace _SHAR with ASSO but must also adjust the ROLE and PHRASE values. Furthermore, that is only worthwhile for products that support GEDCOM 7; currently RM and FH. See https://github.com/FamilySearch/GEDCOM/releases/ under ASSETS for gedcom.pdf and gedcom.html specification files.
|
|
|
|
Mike, Thank you for the clarification, I must download and try RM9 to see what Role tags they are using as from what I've seen in demo the Role did not appear restrictive. Time will tell how the Witness feature evolves. On Sun, 12 Mar 2023, 14:53 Mike Tate, <post@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Adrian Bruce
On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 at 12:33, Bob Hunter <rmwhunter@...> wrote: ... So in your example, I would have a Residence fact for Arthur Henry Chamberlain and record the infant Francis George as a witness to that fact with the role of "Son". This then not only links the two in the same residence at the same time but also provides direct evidence for the familial relationship. ... A lot depends on how you use the Residence fact. Because I use Narrative Reports, I dislike seeing lots of sentences that say the same thing except that the date is (say) 5y later. Therefore I will make use of a date range for the Residence fact, e.g. "From 1861 to 1891 he lived in Crewe, Cheshire, England". If you try to use this as the basis for witness type recording, it doesn't play nicely with what's happening to the witnesses. If one of the witnesses is a child who's there only from 1881 to 1891, then you have to have two (at least) Residence facts for the head of household - the first
"From 1861 to 1871 he lived in Crewe, Cheshire, England", no witnesses, and the second
"From 1881 to 1891 he lived in Crewe, Cheshire, England" with the child set as a witness. If. on the other hand, you just use copy, paste and amend, with no witnesses, you can have (for the head of household)
"From 1861 to 1891 he lived in Crewe, Cheshire, England" (no witnesses) and for the child (the copied, pasted and amended)
"From 1881 to 1891 he lived in Crewe, Cheshire, England" (no witnesses). And to make the connection, you need the notes for the 2 facts to manually describe what's going on - e.g.
"From 1861 to 1891 he lived in Crewe, Cheshire, England - Note - Each of their children lived with them from birth" and
"From 1881 to 1891 he lived in Crewe, Cheshire, England - Note - he lived with his parents and siblings until he left to get married". I seem to be using the 2nd construction these days but as I implied, that's because I use data ranges. If you don't, you could possibly use Witnesses. I will only add that I'm on my 4th variation of how to record Residences! Adrian ,_._,_ |
|
|
|
What the user interface displays as the Role value may not be the same as the value of the GEDCOM 7 ROLE tag. e.g. Witness may get converted to WITN, Vicar might get converted to CLERGY, and a freeform Teacher role might get converted to ROLE OTHER and PHRASE Teacher.
From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Vyger
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2023 3:38 PM To: family-historian@groups.io Subject: Re: [family-historian] Recording of a shared Residence, possible applies to other facts #new
Mike,
Thank you for the clarification, I must download and try RM9 to see what Role tags they are using as from what I've seen in demo the Role did not appear restrictive.
Time will tell how the Witness feature evolves.
On Sun, 12 Mar 2023, 14:53 Mike Tate, <post@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Daewar
Thank you all,
It appears that I've been doing it correct after all. It's now more obvious to me in what I see as a fact in FH.  Does not always print out in reports looking & feeling the same, as with this "Individual Summary Report" and probably many others. Son: 10 Apr 1923 (age 5) Francis George CHAMBERLAIN was a Son at Residence of Arthur Henry CHAMBERLAIN on 10 April 1923 in Badsey, Worcestershire, England |
|
|