Page 1 of 1

Witness and Role in “Special” Events

Posted: 06 Jan 2022 09:14
by dbnut
Sorry this is long, and if this has been suggested before – a couple of quick searches came up with nothing, but it’s hard to find suitable search terms! Let alone a title for this post.

For me, FH Witnesses/Roles are one of the most useful and far-reaching data structure innovations since FH Version 3 (and, as an aside, there is scope for extension one day).

A perfect example is for a person’s birth where we can now add witnesses like midwife (and any other significant person) for the birth itself, or whoever was the informant at the birth registration.

Marriages can be an even richer field for making links – not just the “witnesses” themselves and celebrant (if that direction floats your boat), but best man, bridesmaids, etc, when these are known.

Although there is the option to store witness names, I really do prefer to enter them as Individual records. That probably has many potential benefits, but obviously:
  • it’s the only way to enter additional information about that person, if anything is known, and
  • it may turn out later the same name crops up in another witness context, so the link is made explicitly (even if there is uncertainty about the shared identity, that can be recorded), and
  • it may often turn out that a witness is related in the tree somewhere (and we won’t necessarily remember we had them somewhere else as a witness (and make the necessary changes).
In fact, it could be a sensible routine to flag all “floating” witnesses as candidates for further research!

Well, there’s nothing new here, so far, but here is a scenario.

I had several relatives at the Battle of Trafalgar, being the Place of Death in one case, but needing a custom event “Fought at” (which may have been technically incorrect, never mind) for others.

Very probably, other users have created umpteen custom events for all kinds of participation in the World Wars (though I haven’t made that a priority or looked at examples in members’ postings).

What pained me before was the serious difficulty identifying all tree Individuals involved (in any way) in WW1 for example. Perhaps Witness is the solution?

Here is a trick.

Suppose we had an Event (somewhere) called “WW1”… then all we have to do is add, as witnesses to that event, everyone in turn (from out “homework assignment” list of relevant Individuals), adding a suitable new role or picking from those already used.

One attraction for me is that we do not have to have any specific WW1-related event or attribute created for the individual concerned. Indeed, their list of roles as witnesses can be a motivation to add suitable facts later.

The outstanding question is where to create the “WW1” event in the first place. After all, GEDCOM (and so FH) has no way to create what you might call unrelated, floating, disembodied or global Events (and my fuzzy vision of a new-age GEDCOM does include that notion). So, what we need is the key trick

The details don’t matter too much but create an unrelated Individual “[no forename] GLOBAL” (no facts needed) then add one child for each global event needed – start with “WW1 GLOBAL”, for example.

Create a new event-type Fact called "World War 1" (or similar) and add one to that child of GLOBAL. N.B. don’t mess with “WW1 GLOBAL” by adding any more events.

Optionally, add event date (or span) and place (though something like “Global” would be better in this example), with any useful extras (notes and media could well be attractive in some other examples).

Done. Now add witnesses as needed.

A couple of suggestions to help keep these global individuals and associated facts visually distinct from others:
  • prefix global individual surnames with something like “!” so they sort in a group at the top of the list (or find something to group them at the end, and let me know), and
  • prefix global event names with something legal(!) like “_” (underscore) for the same reason.
Thanks for reading, and please give critical feedback – using Witnesses is quite new to me.

Re: Witness and Role in “Special” Events

Posted: 06 Jan 2022 13:05
by tatewise
The concept of dummy GLOBAL Individual records is quite similar to the dummy HISTORICAL FACTS Individual records discussed in the Timeline Facts – Overview, which you might find interesting.

My first reaction is why not use a Named List called WW1 and put all the appropriate Individual records in that list?
That is rather simpler than the structure of dummy Individuals and Fact Witnesses.

In GEDCOM terms, Named Lists and Fact Witnesses are not formally defined in GEDCOM 5.5.1.
Fact Witnesses are implemented in various ways in a few products and I believe in GEDCOM 7.

Re: Witness and Role in “Special” Events

Posted: 06 Jan 2022 17:34
by dbnut
tatewise wrote:
06 Jan 2022 13:05
The concept of dummy GLOBAL Individual records is quite similar to the dummy HISTORICAL FACTS Individual records discussed in the Timeline Facts – Overview, which you might find interesting.
MM, I did find that interesting and wish I'd noticed it before. A few comments:
  • humble pie - identical, I suppose, except abstract objects;
  • very clever queries and the individuals/named lists to support them, though personally I have no need of that kind of query or any type of report (yet?);
  • not to denigrate named lists, but they do need to be consciously maintained so I tend to avoid them except for specific (limited) tasks;
tatewise wrote:
06 Jan 2022 13:05
My first reaction is why not use a Named List called WW1 and put all the appropriate Individual records in that list?
That is rather simpler than the structure of dummy Individuals and Fact Witnesses.
Easy one, that. Once you have the single record and its single event (not exactly a hardship), you have all the structure in place to add extra data about that event. In a less famous case you might want to add even sources and media.

But the killer benefit (from my point of view) of Witnesses is the two-way navigation in the Property Box.

If the idea of global events ever did take off, an interface mini-tool would be welcome: "create a global event with its hosting record created and named automatically".
tatewise wrote:
06 Jan 2022 13:05
In GEDCOM terms, Named Lists and Fact Witnesses are not formally defined in GEDCOM 5.5.1.
Fact Witnesses are implemented in various ways in a few products and I believe in GEDCOM 7.
Too right! And full marks to Simon Orde for ordering those! And, even without a look at other products, it isn't that difficult to recognise that Witness (or something like it) is the "missing link" (read: "fatal flaw") in the whole GEDCOM hierarchical paradigm.

I don't give a whatsit if LDS never takes this on board, or what other products decide to do, because I'd never move from FH. If it folded, I wouldn't have the energy (or maybe the time) to make another migration. and my data will be someone else's problem.

But the deeper reason is that, from the evidence, I'd say Calico is on the right track - although progress is far slower than I'd like. The future for Witness, as I'd like it to happen, would be:
  • Recognising that Object Role Modelling (ORM) is actually an analysis methodolgy, with the "roles" actually a conflation of Role and Participation (the former an attribute of the latter in any decent relational data model). I'm sorry to say that too many of the analysts I've worked with just don't get it, either, and there have been some crappy systems as a result.
  • Participation can use all the properties of Events, including time/period, place/area, and may be cited from either "end" of the link.
  • Participation links "objects" which, in my book (and crucially), include Events and every type of "record" (whether from the GEDCOM standard or supplied obligingly as "virtual", such as Place).
  • By including events, we allow for (besides the Witness structure already provided) relationships between events. That is very on-topic because it opens up many options for explicit hierarchy (campaigns and battles in WW1), causation, etc., and following those paths in the Property Box.
  • By including Record pairs, we introduce recording of arbitrary relationships between people, families, places, events, etc., limited only by your needs or imagination. Friendship, feuding, apprenticeship/employment, ownership, residence, instigation (of an event), hierarchy (of places).
  • For definiteness, Participation will have an optional attribute Principal to indicate which of the two participants (or neither) should be considered as principal. A sensible default would be Events are principal for People. With a friendship, for example, there may be no need for this. For most others it will "pick out" the correct choice of role name (see next).
  • Role (a.k.a. "Participation Type") , with its Note attribute, needs almost no additional structure. It is, as now, an attribute of Participation. For reporting purposes, there should be the option of adding a converse Role Name, used with Participation-Principal (see previous). For example, choosing registration as the principal, the natural role would be "Informant" while the converse may optionally be recorded explicitly as "was informed by".
  • A Participation may have arbitrary numbers of Role pairs, permitting cases of multi-role involvement (e.g. both Mother and Informant at a birth registration)
The beauty of this Participation/Role structure (I claim) is that it sits independently, side-by-side with the existing FH "extended GEDCOM" model; doesn't introduce a single extra structural concept; can be used independently of Witness, or instead of it, or not at all.

As for user interface, as far as I have thought about this, little change should be needed beyond a better Role Manager.