* Occupation at Death

Questions regarding use of any Version of Family Historian. Please ensure you have set your Version of Family Historian in your Profile
Post Reply
avatar
NigelBrown
Diamond
Posts: 64
Joined: 27 Apr 2015 21:12
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Wolverhampton, UK
Contact:

Occupation at Death

Post by NigelBrown » 08 Feb 2017 16:33

UK Death Certificates generally state an occupation of the deceased when an adult. However, often it is not clear whether or not this occupation was carried on until the day he died, or had ceased some time earlier, an important difference I think. Using the standard Occupation Fact implies that the occupation was continuing until the date of death. I would like an "Occupation-Last" Fact that is clear about this (unclear) situation.

If I have Fact Sentence: "The last occupation of {individual}, prior to {his/her} death, was {a/an value}{=GetLabelledText(%FACT.NOTE2%,"Time:")} {place}" in the Sentence Pane of his Property Box, it reads: The last occupation of he, prior to his death, was a general labourer" which is surely not right, although in an Individual Narrative it reads: "The last occupation of Henry, prior to his death, was a general labourer", which is exactly right.

If I change the Fact Sentence to read: "{individual's} last occupation, prior to {his/her} death, was {a/an value}{=GetLabelledText(%FACT.NOTE2%,"Time:")}", the Individual Narrative now reads: "Henry last occupation, prior to his death, was a general labourer" which is poor, whilst the Sentence Pane now reads: " His last occupation, prior to his death, was a general labourer", which is OK-ish but I would prefer the first "His" to say Henry's so that "his" is not repeated in the same sentence.

Why the discrepancy and how can I achieve consistency between what I see (Property Box) and what I get (Narrative)?
Nigel Brown - http://www.nigelbrown.me.uk
Vousden One-Name Study - http://www.vousden.name

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 16319
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Occupation at Death

Post by tatewise » 08 Feb 2017 18:04

In your first version use {individual/him/her} instead of {individual}.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

avatar
NigelBrown
Diamond
Posts: 64
Joined: 27 Apr 2015 21:12
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Wolverhampton, UK
Contact:

Re: Occupation at Death

Post by NigelBrown » 08 Feb 2017 18:42

Mike,

I have substituted {individual/him/her} instead of {individual} in my first version, so now it reads: "The last occupation of {individual/him/her}, prior to {his/her} death, was {a/an value}{=GetLabelledText(%FACT.NOTE2%,"Time:")} {place}". The Narrative output remains the same, which is perfect, but the Sentence Pane of his Property Box now reads: The last occupation of him, prior to his death, was a general labourer". That is, it has changed he to him, so is still not right.

Nigel
Nigel Brown - http://www.nigelbrown.me.uk
Vousden One-Name Study - http://www.vousden.name

User avatar
LornaCraig
Megastar
Posts: 1511
Joined: 11 Jan 2005 17:36
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Oxfordshire, UK

Re: Occupation at Death

Post by LornaCraig » 08 Feb 2017 19:11

The discrepancy between the sentence in the Property Box and the sentence in the narrative report may be due to the way FH handles data codes in different contexts.

For example, consider an individual who has two simple events, birth and death. A narrative report will produce
John Smith was born circa 1900. He died on 1 January 1980.

But if there is a note for the birth event and the report options are set to include Event/Attribute notes, the narrative report will read
John Smith was born circa 1900. The exact date of birth is not known. John died on 1 January 1980.

So in the first case the sentence about the death uses He but in the second case it uses John.

I think it works this way because the presence of the extra sentence (the note) could make it unclear in some circumstances who 'he' is in the next sentence. The Help files say the use of the individual's name or he/she depends on the context (see attached), and I don't think it is possible to force FH to use the individual's name regardless of context.
Attachments
Codes.JPG
Codes.JPG (28.9 KiB) Viewed 2994 times
Lorna

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 16319
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Occupation at Death

Post by tatewise » 08 Feb 2017 21:08

As Lorna says, it is quite likely that the local Sentence box and the Narrative Report will be different, because the former has no context, and the latter adapts to preceding sentences to avoid repeating the person's name unnecessarily and to avoid possible misunderstandings.

If you want to force the Sentence text, then edit it locally and any explicit words will be retained in the Narrative Report.

See Knowledge Base > Narrative Report Fact Sentence Templates under Specific Fact Sentences.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

avatar
NigelBrown
Diamond
Posts: 64
Joined: 27 Apr 2015 21:12
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Wolverhampton, UK
Contact:

Re: Occupation at Death

Post by NigelBrown » 09 Feb 2017 11:09

Thank you Mike and Lorna for the clarification.

I prepared a response to Lorna's message last night leaving it for today to send. Perhaps it is no longer necessary but for the sake of completeness I will do so, so here goes.

---"Thank you Lorna for your explanation, which is interesting and helpful. In the first output example you give, "John Smith was born circa 1900. He died on 1 January 1980" makes perfect sense, because the second sentence immediately follows the first, so changing to "He died" reads well. Also, in the second example, "John Smith was born circa 1900. The exact date of birth is not known. John died on 1 January 1980", the narrative also reads perfectly well, in that the third sentence maintains his name, after the second sentence that has no name, and reads even better because it changes from John Smith to John. This too makes perfect sense to me, and reads well. (Aside: wouldn't it be great if we could tell it when to do this.)

However, my query is firstly, why is there a discrepancy between sentence template and narrative output (why do we not get what we see?), and secondly, why when I use the form "{individual's}", that is, with an "apostrophe 's" in the sentence template , does the narrative not respect this and say "Henry last occupation" rather than "Henry's"? We have the choice of {individual} or {individual's} and surely this is just plain mis-interpretaion of the sentence template, simply ignoring an instruction. Why bother giving us the choice?

I think these are perhaps questions for Calico Pie but I was hoping that I was just doing it wrong!"---

So, I (reluctantly) accept and understand that the local Sentence box and the Narrative Report will be different, because the former has no context, and the latter adapts to preceding sentences to avoid repeating the person's name unnecessarily. However, I still think this is counter-intuitive, but I guess that intuition has little to do with logic, and I still have difficulty with instructing "{individual's}" and I get Henry and not Henry's.

Thanks again.
Nigel Brown - http://www.nigelbrown.me.uk
Vousden One-Name Study - http://www.vousden.name

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 16319
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Occupation at Death

Post by tatewise » 09 Feb 2017 11:53

I have experimented with {individual's} and that missing apostrophe 's does appear to be a fault that you should report to Calico Pie.

Also if the Sentence Template is such as <{note}. >{individual} ... then the narrative sentence is This is a note. he ... i.e. the he is not capitalised, and should be reported too.

I have some other thoughts for you to consider.
The custom attribute Occupation-Last does export quite well to most products, but will not be recognised as an Occupation and any narrative reports may not be correctly worded.
It would be 'better' if you could stick to just the standard Death &/or Occupation facts.

I notice you are familiar with the Meta-field concept since you have used the Time: labelled Note text.
You could add an Occupation: labelled Meta-field to the Death event and construct the Sentence Template to include the last occupation phrase conditionally on that Meta-field.

Alternatively, you could use the standard Occupation fact and adapt its Sentence Template wording if its Date is the same as the Death event Date. i.e. {=TextIf(%FACT.DATE% = %CUR_PRIN.DEAT.DATE%,"last occupation",)} will say last occupation only when the the two dates are the same.

Remember also the ability to force the local Sentence text by editing it locally so any explicit words will be retained in the Narrative Report.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

avatar
NigelBrown
Diamond
Posts: 64
Joined: 27 Apr 2015 21:12
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Wolverhampton, UK
Contact:

Re: Occupation at Death

Post by NigelBrown » 09 Feb 2017 21:40

Mike and Lorna,

Thank you for your help. I now have a better understanding and a way forward, using Mike's expression in the Standard Occupation tag which will add my "final occupation" words if its Date is the same as the Death event Date. Easy when you know how.

I have reported to Calico Pie that usage of {individual's} is faulty.
Nigel Brown - http://www.nigelbrown.me.uk
Vousden One-Name Study - http://www.vousden.name

User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 814
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Occupation at Death

Post by AdrianBruce » 09 Feb 2017 23:03

tatewise wrote:I have experimented with {individual's} and that missing apostrophe 's does appear to be a fault that you should report to Calico Pie ...
Curiously I found that a day or two back and also reported it back to Calico. Wonder how long that's lurked there?
Adrian

avatar
NigelBrown
Diamond
Posts: 64
Joined: 27 Apr 2015 21:12
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Wolverhampton, UK
Contact:

Re: Occupation at Death

Post by NigelBrown » 10 Feb 2017 00:19

When I reported the apostrope fault to Calico Pie I received what I guess was an automated reply, quickly followed by a second message saying that they had already received another report of the same fault by an FHUG member.
Nigel Brown - http://www.nigelbrown.me.uk
Vousden One-Name Study - http://www.vousden.name

avatar
NigelBrown
Diamond
Posts: 64
Joined: 27 Apr 2015 21:12
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Wolverhampton, UK
Contact:

Re: Occupation at Death

Post by NigelBrown » 10 Feb 2017 17:24

And just to complete, I have now modified the Standard Death Fact to read as per below. It seems to perform properly in all cases.

<para>{=TextIf(%FACT.DATE% = %CUR_PRIN.DEAT.DATE%,"Prior to his death ",)}<{date}> {=TextIf(%FACT.DATE% = %CUR_PRIN.DEAT.DATE%,"the last occupation of ",)}{principal} was {a/an value}{=CombineText( TextIf( TextPart(%FACT.PLAC%,1,3,TIDY) = "", " in ", " at "), %FACT.PLAC:TIDY%, , )}

Excellent!
Nigel Brown - http://www.nigelbrown.me.uk
Vousden One-Name Study - http://www.vousden.name

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 16319
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Occupation at Death

Post by tatewise » 10 Feb 2017 18:02

I am glad that has worked out well.
One tiny comment ~ should it say "Prior to their death " to cater for both men and women?
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

avatar
NigelBrown
Diamond
Posts: 64
Joined: 27 Apr 2015 21:12
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Wolverhampton, UK
Contact:

Re: Occupation at Death

Post by NigelBrown » 10 Feb 2017 22:48

Mike,

Well spotted. Rather than say "their Death" I have split the first expression into two, and it now reads:

<para>{=TextIf(%FACT.DATE% = %CUR_PRIN.DEAT.DATE%,"Prior to ",)}{his/her}{=TextIf(%FACT.DATE% = %CUR_PRIN.DEAT.DATE%," death ",)}<{date}> {=TextIf(%FACT.DATE% = %CUR_PRIN.DEAT.DATE%,"the last occupation of ",)}{principal} was {a/an value}{=CombineText( TextIf( TextPart(%FACT.PLAC%,1,3,TIDY) = "", " in ", " at "), %FACT.PLAC:TIDY%, , )}

I have tested it (on a man and a woman!) and it works!
Nigel Brown - http://www.nigelbrown.me.uk
Vousden One-Name Study - http://www.vousden.name

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 16319
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Occupation at Death

Post by tatewise » 10 Feb 2017 23:16

Bet you have NOT tested it on an Occupation that does NOT have the Death Date :D

It will say His on 1 Jan 2000 John SMITH was...

If you really want it to be Sex dependent then you will need to utilise the Sex() function.

{=TextIf(%FACT.DATE% = %CUR_PRIN.DEAT.DATE%,Text("Prior to " . Sex(%CUR_PRIN%,"his","her","their") . " death "),)}{date}

You do not need the < > around {date}
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

Post Reply