* Incorrect Relationship to Root

[David Potter]

Hi Forum

I chose to have AS create 2 x Individuals with no declared Sex. EG, they were reported as Children who have died on the 1911 UK census. Both Individuals were created correctly in FH with no Sex, but now show as my Great Uncle in the Individuals List. Even though the sex is undeclared.

See the attached image.

Can you please advise best course of action to resolve this incorrect relationship.

BR

David

[David Potter]

Added right hand side of image showing relationship.

BR

David

[tatewise]

It would have helped if you stated what you wanted the relationship to say, bearing in mind that you must consider all possible types of relationship and not just great-uncle/aunt, i.e. suffixes such as husband/wife, nephew/niece, son/daughter, brother/sister, father/mother, etc. However, catering for all those will be quite a complex Expression.

Here is a variant of the Relationship column Expression that will exclude the relationship for people with undefined Sex:

=ExistsText(%INDI.SEX%,Relationship(FileRoot()))

[David Potter]

Hi Mike

I guess I was expecting to see something like 'Undefined' as I would say the Relationship calculation should not automatically default to assuming the Sex is of a Male!

David

[David Potter]

Thank you Mike, that solution worked a treat.

David

[tatewise]

Your wish is my command. If you want it to say Undefined in place of a relationship when Sex is undefined, then try:

=TextIf( Exists(%INDI.SEX%), Relationship(FileRoot()), TextIf( Relationship(FileRoot()) = "", "", "Undefined"))

i.e.
If Sex is defined then display Relationship, else if Relationship = "" then display "" else "Undefined"
In other words if Sex is defined display the usual Relationship if any.
If Sex is undefined and Relationship is blank then display nothing, but if not blank then display Undefined.

[David Potter]

Spot On - Thanks Mike

[David Potter]

Hi Mike

I have noticed an issue when running a standard query 'All Individuals' in that this query continues to report these un-sexed individuals as Great Uncles. Can you help to provide guidance on how to fix that standard query as you did above with the script that solved the problem for the Individual Records Window. Can other areas of FH be affected by this? Reports or Books maybe. How do I make this change a general fix to this particular issue?

This also raises a question on how to make these changes permanent in that they continue to work after any FH program version update.

Many thanks

David

[David Potter]

Hi Mike - figured out the Standard Query part of my post above. As in save as Custom Query after inserting your script =TextIf( Exists(%INDI.SEX%), Relationship(FileRoot()), TextIf( Relationship(FileRoot()) = "", "", "Undefined"))

But still left wondering if this could cause an issue elsewhere in FH. Reports, Books or Interactive Diagrams? Would very much welcome your comments please.

Is this topic worthy of a Wish List request to become standard? I'm thinking others would probably agree with this approach to un-sexed individuals and how the relationship calculator works in that situation?

Thanks again

David

[tatewise]

Yes David.

Unlike other Standard scripts, you cannot edit Standard Queries (I've never understood why).
So first use Query Menu > Save As Custom Query to create a custom copy.
Then on its Columns tab, Update the Relationship to Root with its Expression exactly as posted here.

Similarly, in Diagrams & Charts and Reports & Books, if there is a customisable field using the =Relationship(FileRoot(),...) expression, then replace it with exactly the same as posted here.

All such customisations should be retained after any minor or major FH Program update.
But is best if saved as Custom Queries, Custom Diagram Types, or Custom Report Types, rather than just customising the Standard Diagrams & Reports.
Additionally, use the Backup and Restore Family Historian Settings Plugin to preserve a backup in your Family Historian Projects folder, which should be included in your file backup regime to protect against disk/PC crash, never mind FH Program update mishaps.

Since nobody else has contributed to this thread, it would not seem as popular a problem as you think, so unlikely to be a popular Wish List item.

[David Potter]

Hi Mike

Got It. And many thanks for the quick reply.

Best Regards

David

[davidm_uk]

Surely this is a bug in FH, albeit not a serious one and while it can be circumvented as described by Mike, the impact of it could pop up in all sorts of places. If sex is undefined then FH should not make assumptions about it, although I don't know how the relationship calculator would deal with it.

[tatewise]

David that comment is something of a two edged sword!
If you consider it is a bug, and I don't disagree, then report it to Calico Pie Support.
BUT do give them a clue about how the relationship calculator should deal with it.
Some relationships are easy, such as father/mother replaced by parent and brother/sister replaced by sibling, but others such as nephew/niece and uncle/aunt are more difficult.

[David Potter]

Hi Guys

This is a bug, and as I reported it here in the forum I will take this up and report to Calico Pie as a bug with suggestions that the fix should at least follow the basic logic defined by Mike and myself (above). First and foremost if the individual is marked as un-sexed in FH, then relationship should state 'Undefined' and not assume a Male relationship type as it did for me by stating 'Great Uncle'.


BR

David

[Peter Collier]

Some relationships are easy, such as father/mother replaced by parent and brother/sister replaced by sibling, but others such as nephew/niece and uncle/aunt are more difficult.

I did see written once, I don't remember where, that perhaps English speakers should coin the word "nibling" as general term for "nephew/niece" on a par with "sibling" for "brother/sister". Spoken no doubt in jest – it certainly made me smile – but it does illustrate an awkward lexical gap. It's interesting too, that in this case English has the specific terms - nephew and niece - but lacks a more general one. Oftentimes it's the other way round: is that brother-in-law the wife's brother or the sister's husband? Is that grandmother maternal or paternal? I also find it interesting how different languages have their lexical gaps in different places, and why.

[mjashby]

Peter,

We do have a broader term in 'English' to describe a wide range of blood relationships, i.e. kin/kinsman/kinswoman, but these have largely fallen from favour, other than when using terms such as "next of kin" or "kith and kin". Still, finding "I leave £20 to Mary ...., my late Wife's kinswoman." can be quite frustrating from the research point of view, but I do hope she eventually got her legacy!

Mervyn

[David Potter]

Hi All

I have now reported the issue to FH development and they have acknowledged.

David