* Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Questions regarding use of any Version of Family Historian. Please ensure you have set your Version of Family Historian in your Profile. If your question fits in one of these subject-specific sub-forums, please ask it there.
avatar
KFN
Superstar
Posts: 274
Joined: 20 Jun 2021 01:00
Family Historian: V7

Re: Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Post by KFN »

davidf wrote: 19 Jun 2022 13:28 The standard talks about "Future GEDCOM releases (6.0 or later) will likely apply a very different strategy to resolve this problem, possibly using a sophisticated parser and a name-knowledge database
The latest GEDCOM v7.0 still kicks the can down the road. Name recording is hard to wrap a Standard around. Customs change over time and location with variations that defy standardization. A couple (Smith and Jones) could become Smith-Jones, Smith Jones, SmithJones or even Smiones. These are probably anomalies and can’t be strictly Standardized by GEDCOM but the Standard should not be so rigid that it can’t be recorded.

This being said, I personally think that indexing, finding, grouping and building statistics of names used by people is very important to a good genealogy program. And the database however organized must provide for these functions, GEDCOM buy association should try to allow for the transfer of indices and groupings so entered information is not lost.

As far as Russian names I can’t help in understanding a good process for searching or organization as I have not looked into their customs.

In the case of Icelandic and Norwegian organization and searching, in Iceland most people can trace their families back to the Time of Settlement, and in Norway many families have roots in their farms back into the 1700s because in both cases Genealogy is not a current pastime!
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Post by tatewise »

An enhancement to FH Records Window sorting of Individual Names is to allow indexing by each 'word' in the /Surname/.
i.e.
van Gogh is sorted with both the V and G names
Smith-Jones is sorted with both the S and J names
de'la Cruz is sorted with the D and L and C names

That would require the same record to be allowed to appear on more than one row in the Records Window.

It is similar to the Name comparisons performed in my Find Duplicate Individuals plugin, where each 'word' in a Name is compared with each 'word' in another Name.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 2090
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Post by AdrianBruce »

davidf wrote: 19 Jun 2022 12:43 Reading current American obituaries I get the impression that it is quite widespread for women on marriage to "move" their maiden surname to be a final Given-name before taking their husband's name.
...
And similarly on 2nd marriages but it varies - possibly even on the first marriage. IIRC one of my distant relatives moved her maiden surname to be the last given-name on her first marriage. However, on remarriage after divorce, the first husband's surname was lost. Whether that's typical for post-divorce names, I've no idea.
davidf wrote: 19 Jun 2022 12:43...
The GEDCOM Name_Type may in the future help handle this [ref https://gedcom.io/specifications/ged551.pdf p56] - but I do wish you could apply a date to the Name_type (as you can to the TITL Title tag) so you could keep track of changing usage through an individual's life.
The NAME_TYPE does have the option of a user-defined value. There is a drop-down list for the item on the All tab and while "user defined" is not listed, you can also type anything in there, such as a date or useful phrase (e.g. "1986+"). Nonetheless, there should be a proper date item in the GECDOM Standard. (Bleedin' obvious that there should be in my mind.)

The NAME_TYPE can then be made visible on diagrams by altering the text scheme - this is what I have just tried as the text scheme for second and subsequent names:
a.k.a. %INDI.NAME[2+]:ADORNED_FULL% %INDI.NAME[2+].TYPE%

Of course, out-of-the-box visibility of NAME_TYPE isn't good otherwise, without resorting to the All Tab.
Adrian
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Post by tatewise »

There is Wish List Ref 559 Fact Descriptor for Civil Union, two Place Travel, Preferred Occupation, etc. requesting that the Fact TYPE field Descriptor be fully supported in line with the GEDCOM specification. A similar request or an addendum could extend that to Names.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 2090
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Post by AdrianBruce »

Just to be explicit - filtering by Last Name on the Individual Records tab will pick up any component of the last name, e.g. "Ralph /Twistleton Whykeham Fiennes/" will be picked up if I filter by Twi, Why or Fie (I've only written 3 letters but filtering works with any number).

So "Vincent /van Gogh/" can be picked up by typing Gog / Gogh / whatever, which perhaps eases searching by the crucial bit, even if the "van" is left inside the Surname, rather than being pulled out into a Surname Prefix.
Adrian
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Post by tatewise »

It also filters with hyphenated names like Smith-Jones on both Smi and Jon, but that does not work for other non-alphabetic delimiters so de'la Cruz does not filter on la.
However, that is not the same as listing the record in more than one position when there is no filter.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
User avatar
davidf
Megastar
Posts: 951
Joined: 17 Jan 2009 19:14
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: UK

Re: Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Post by davidf »

AdrianBruce wrote: 19 Jun 2022 17:14 ...
So "Vincent /van Gogh/" can be picked up by typing Gog / Gogh / whatever, which perhaps eases searching by the crucial bit, even if the "van" is left inside the Surname, rather than being pulled out into a Surname Prefix.
Most (all?) of the FH selection dialogues with "Last" and "First" fields will find a name provided you search the correct field (which I think actually correspond to INDI.NAME:SURNAME and INDI.NAME:GIVEN_ALL). Technically the "van " should rarely get into most SURN fields. For searching it most naturally lies in the INDI.NAME:SURNAME rather than INDI.NAME:GIVEN_ALL.

The key issue seems to be boiling down to sorting and grouping - in the UK/Ireland we have a variation on this with /McXXXXX/ and /MacXXXXX/ with many wanting the a in Mac (optionally?) ignored in sorting and grouping - yet I think most people would say that Mc and Mac are now recognised as part of the surname and should be in SURN?
David
Running FH 6.2.7. Under Wine on Linux (Ubuntu 22.04 LTS + LXDE 11)
User avatar
davidf
Megastar
Posts: 951
Joined: 17 Jan 2009 19:14
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: UK

Re: Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Post by davidf »

tatewise wrote: 19 Jun 2022 16:53 ...
That would require the same record to be allowed to appear on more than one row in the Records Window.
...
I have an uncomfortable feeling that for many that could end up being very confusing.

Where would we stop? List all alternates on separate lines? List married women once under their maiden name and then once for each married name?

I think that goes against the idea of the Records window being a "window of records" (implication that 1 line = 1 record).

Thinking in the other dimension (columns rather than rows):

I am wondering how much mileage there is in something like a custom column "SortName" or even a custom Attribute where individual users could build a desired Name Sort,
It could be buildable via field selection and ordering as in so many of the "select from LH column and move to RH column" dialogues. You could specify the attribute as a sort order in reports etc. There is no reason why, if presented through a good Interface, you can't have a number of pre-build and customisable SortNames and select the one you want - It can't be more complex that Text Schemes!
So someone might have:
NAME:SURNAME+NAME:GIVEN_ALL (the current default), or
NAME:SURNAME[last]+NAME:GIVEN_ALL (useful for grave(yard) research), or
SURN+GIVN,
others might want (in the future)
SURN+PATR+GIVN - where PATR is Patronymic (that tag is not already taken in 5.5.1)
David
Running FH 6.2.7. Under Wine on Linux (Ubuntu 22.04 LTS + LXDE 11)
User avatar
davidf
Megastar
Posts: 951
Joined: 17 Jan 2009 19:14
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: UK

Re: Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Post by davidf »

tatewise wrote: 19 Jun 2022 17:22 It also filters with hyphenated names like Smith-Jones on both Smi and Jon, but that does not work for other non-alphabetic delimiters so de'la Cruz does not filter on la.
However, that is not the same as listing the record in more than one position when there is no filter.
That at first sight is weird but if we see the hyphen in Smith-Jones as a coded special case, it is more explainable. FH search I think will only work with fragments starting from the beginning of what it sees as "words" - usually delimitated by a space or start of field.

de'la Cruz is one case but it also applies to Irish names like O'Connor (or even O'Bama). The O used to be a prefix, but is now generally seen as a part of the SURN. In the O'Connor instance is that an anglicisation of Ó Connor rather that the apostrophe indicating an omitted letter? In that case Ó is the SPFX and Connor is the SURN - but we want Ó Connor and O'Connor to sort together? Another instance of a need for name standardisation?
David
Running FH 6.2.7. Under Wine on Linux (Ubuntu 22.04 LTS + LXDE 11)
User avatar
davidf
Megastar
Posts: 951
Joined: 17 Jan 2009 19:14
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: UK

Re: Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Post by davidf »

AdrianBruce wrote: 19 Jun 2022 16:59
davidf wrote: 19 Jun 2022 12:43...
The GEDCOM Name_Type may in the future help handle this [ref https://gedcom.io/specifications/ged551.pdf p56] - but I do wish you could apply a date to the Name_type (as you can to the TITL Title tag) so you could keep track of changing usage through an individual's life.
The NAME_TYPE does have the option of a user-defined value. There is a drop-down list for the item on the All tab and while "user defined" is not listed, you can also type anything in there, such as a date or useful phrase (e.g. "1986+"). Nonetheless, there should be a proper date item in the GECDOM Standard. (Bleedin' obvious that there should be in my mind.)

The NAME_TYPE can then be made visible on diagrams by altering the text scheme - this is what I have just tried as the text scheme for second and subsequent names:
a.k.a. %INDI.NAME[2+]:ADORNED_FULL% %INDI.NAME[2+].TYPE%

Of course, out-of-the-box visibility of NAME_TYPE isn't good otherwise, without resorting to the All Tab.
The NAME_TYPE is presumably a V7/GEDCOM 5.5.1 thing - I can't see it on V6 - if so it is a welcome start.

On reflection - and after reading Mike's comment about an existing wish list relating to implementation of the TYPE tag - which I voted for a while ago - I think I should have said I want to see the ability to put Dates to a Name not to a Name_Type - It is a name that usually has a varying currency rather than the Type. But I don't think GEDCOM supports explicit dates as children items for NAME or for NAME.TYPE.
David
Running FH 6.2.7. Under Wine on Linux (Ubuntu 22.04 LTS + LXDE 11)
User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 2090
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Post by AdrianBruce »

davidf wrote: 19 Jun 2022 19:41
tatewise wrote: 19 Jun 2022 16:53 ...
That would require the same record to be allowed to appear on more than one row in the Records Window.
...
I have an uncomfortable feeling that for many that could end up being very confusing.
...
I think that goes against the idea of the Records window being a "window of records" (implication that 1 line = 1 record).
...
Hm. I think David's right there. It's one thing to filter on multiple names (FH already does it for maiden and married names) but that still shows just one line (i.e. one record).

But showing the same entry twice for Vincent sorted in with both "van Gogh" and "Gogh" entries would seem potentially confusing. If that's what was meant. Personally, I think that if you make a decision (explicitly or implicitly) about whether or not the "van" is part of the surname proper or a prefix to it, then FH should behave accordingly. As we've said, given that most of us are Anglo-centric who've never thought about these things, we won't have an issue with Vincent being shown once in amongst the "vans". Whereas if the system starts being cleverer than us, we get confused...

(Flippant aside - anyone with Van Morrison in their tree? Or film star Van Johnson? ;) )
Adrian
User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 2090
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Post by AdrianBruce »

davidf wrote: 19 Jun 2022 20:24... I don't think GEDCOM supports explicit dates as children items for NAME or for NAME.TYPE.
It doesn't. When FamilySearch were evolving GEDCOM-X - alleged to be the basis for the API for access to FamilySearch FamilyTree - I suggested dates should be applicable to Names. To my astonishment, I got push-back from the FS team - "But that would make it just like any other attribute!" To which I responded "Err, yes..."
Adrian
User avatar
davidf
Megastar
Posts: 951
Joined: 17 Jan 2009 19:14
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: UK

Re: Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Post by davidf »

Trying to think how to classify complex names not anticipated by the GIVN /SPFX+SURN structure, I wonder if a use of the Name_type might at least enable recording of the classification of name parts - provided the interface is up to it.

In the Name_type TYPE field we could hold a key: value; pair where the Key is "Name Format" and the value is a string holding codes classifying each element of the name as recorded.

Suppose from previous examples a Russian Woman (Zhukova Mariya Iosifovna) married a Dutch man (Name:surname "van Zant") and settled in Amsterdam and she adopted the American habit of allowing her maiden family name to become a given name, she might become:
Zhukova Mariya Iosifovna /van Zant/ of Amsterdam. (To distinguish her from a similarly named woman in Antwerp)
We could classify this name as
  • Zhukova Maiden Surname as Given - code mG
  • Mariya Main Given Name - code G
  • Iosifovna Patronymic - code P
  • van Surname Prefix - code Sp
  • Zant Surname - code S
  • of Location - code L
  • Amsterdam Continuation of last element - code +
The name could be separated into separate words with a pull-down against each word to select the relevant code.
The resultant string in the TYPE field would be: "Name Format: mG, G, P, /Sp, S/, L, +,;"
(Or variations on the idea to iron out the inevitable wrinkles)
Perhaps the codes are unnecessary (except they possibly avoid language issues) and the string could just be:
"Name Format: Maiden Surname as Given, Main Given Name, Patronymic, /Surname Prefix, Surname/, Location, Continuation of last element,;"
David
Running FH 6.2.7. Under Wine on Linux (Ubuntu 22.04 LTS + LXDE 11)
User avatar
davidf
Megastar
Posts: 951
Joined: 17 Jan 2009 19:14
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: UK

Re: Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Post by davidf »

A while (!) back I tried (in answer to Adrian's challenge) to formulate a requirement:
to be able to easily* enter/edit surnames in such a way that indexable and non-indexable parts can be put in the appropriate fields to enable most GEDCOM processors (especially FH - but also including those processors to which we may outwardly migrate) to index the Surnames appropriately
where easily did not mean via the all tab

At core I think this may be a distillation of the original inquiry, but our conversations or volunteered examples have widened the issue. Can I suggest (blue: last draft; magenta: specific amendments to that; black: new additions;):
-------------------------------------------------------------------
to be able to easily* enter/edit surnames or other non-anglosphere name structures and personal identifiers ("names")² in such a way that:
  1. indexable and non-indexable parts of a surname can be put in the appropriate fields to enable most GEDCOM processors¹ to index the Surnames appropriately
  2. "names" that may not recognise the given/surname division can be entered in a way does not force "names" or parts of them to be "things that they are not"², yet which still allows them to be processed by GEDCOM processors.
  3. allows for changes of "names" - both handling TYPE and DATE.
  4. selection, grouping, ordering and analysis of data that is subsidiary to the parent of NAME in the GEDCOM structure (INDI records) is viable.
  5. does not introduce concepts that are significantly in conflict with concepts already in use.³
  6. any "advanced name-handling" is an option that users can configure on or off.
* where easily did not mean via the all tab (implied via a standard dialog)
¹ Current or near future processors especially FH - but also including those processors to which we may outwardly migrate
² For instance: thinking of given +patronymic - where the patronymic is not thought of as a "surname" [ref] - which becomes problematic where searching is on software derived NAME:GIVEN_FULL and NAME:SURNAME "fields" - or Dai /Jones/ the post or John /Smith/ of Beaumont (are those "qualifiers" really nicknames or name suffixes?)
³ For instance if a "standardised name" custom field is introduced, it should operate in a way familiar to people who already use the "standardised place" custom field.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Does the above represent a useful belaying point on the ascent to a wish-list item?
David
Running FH 6.2.7. Under Wine on Linux (Ubuntu 22.04 LTS + LXDE 11)
User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 2090
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Post by AdrianBruce »

tatewise wrote: 19 Jun 2022 17:22 It also filters with hyphenated names like Smith-Jones on both Smi and Jon, but that does not work for other non-alphabetic delimiters so de'la Cruz does not filter on la. ...
Yes, it took me a while to see the significance of this but the current state is that "Louis /de Broglie/" can be quickly found by filtering on "Broglie" (or a shortening), but "/d'Artagnan/" cannot be found by filtering on "Artagnan" (or a shortening).

Which may be a bit of a pain if you decide that your French surnames should filter on the bit after "de" as "d'" will be a possible contraction. Still, given that this may not have been particularly designed, it's a decent result to be 50% of the way there!
Adrian
User avatar
davidf
Megastar
Posts: 951
Joined: 17 Jan 2009 19:14
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: UK

Re: Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Post by davidf »

I guess you can do a search and replace to take every "d'" and replace it with "d'<space>"* - a slight difference in the presentation but potentially a lot easier in the processing?

Add it to your personal standard formatting rules?

You can't hope (one day) to be able to treat "'" in the same way as a space or a hyphen - because of the O'Connor type example

* Edit following Adrian's comment below
Last edited by davidf on 20 Jun 2022 15:48, edited 1 time in total.
David
Running FH 6.2.7. Under Wine on Linux (Ubuntu 22.04 LTS + LXDE 11)
User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 2090
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Post by AdrianBruce »

I'm not sure how useful a critique of the GEDCOM format in this area is, but there are some oddities. Consider the (lightly twisted) name and parts thereof:
1 NAME James Tiberius /de Kirke/
2 NPFX Captain
2 SPFX de
2 NSFX III

Note that only some of the NAME has been further analysed into components. There's no given name and no surname. So far as I can see from the GEDCOM 5.5.1 soecification, this is entirely legal. But it might make a designer of a consistency check think a bit.

Secondly, and I'm not sure this is a problem, note that the values given by NPFX and NSFX (prefix and suffix to the name as a whole) do not appear in the NAME, but the SPFX (prefix to the suname) does appear in the NAME. It may not be a problem but it does feel a little inconsistent. Why not have:
1 NAME Captain James Tiberius /de Kirke/ III
2 NPFX Captain
2 SPFX de
2 NSFX III
Why not? Well, one good reason is that it is "significantly in conflict with concepts already in use" as David puts it.

By the way, the 5.5.1 says that if you have a list of Given Names for one person, they should be separated by commas. What? :o Why? Indeed when it comes to NAME_PIECE_SURNAME_PREFIX then it says
Different surname articles are separated by a comma, for example in the name "de la Cruz", this value would be "de, la"
Tamura Jones in the Annotated 5.5.1 is absolutely against this and says:
FamilySearch's instruction to insert commas in prefixes is not just unmotivated, it is wrong.
You should never modify names. ...
Best practice
Record the prefix as is to ensure it will transfer unmodified.
Modifying the prefix by inserting one or more commas is almost sure to create problems. Most
genealogy applications do not expect commas in any name part.
While Tamura is not the arbiter of the standard, I think that he has a point. Why any commas that aren't in the actual name?

By the way Name Prefix and Name Suffix (abbreviating their names) are described as non-indexing but NAME_PIECE_SURNAME_PREFIX doesn't mention non-indexing, so it's not clear whether FamilySearch intend the Surname Prefix to affect "indexing" or not. I can't actually see any use for it if it doesn't.

I'm also not mad keen on this vague term "indexing". I fear circularity - the GEDCOM defines the data in terms of "indexing", which is a function of the software, but the software only does it because it's defined in the data definition? Fortunately, we can refer to real world "indexing" and collating / sorting such as is found in book indexes, directories and library catalogues. I'd much prefer a real-world explanation at this point. It then directs someone to consider whether Vincent should be sorted in with "van Gogh" or with "Gogh" in their world-experience.

Apologies if you don't want to read this but I think it's worth thinking through - if you like that sort of thing.
Adrian
User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 2090
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Post by AdrianBruce »

davidf wrote: 20 Jun 2022 14:28 I guess you can do a search and replace to take every "d'" and replace it with "d'<space>" - a slight difference in the presentation but potentially a lot easier in the processing? ...
(I inserted the text <space> for clarity). I wouldn't do that myself because the name really is "d'Artagnan", without an embedded space - in any case I have so few of these that I'd just handle it manually.

I did wonder whether the possible future filtering software might recognise "d'" and treat that as a break point equivalent to a hyphen or space.
Adrian
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Post by tatewise »

Adrian, you must have overlooked the following:
2 GIVN for the Given names
2 SURN for the Surname

My plugin handles them both and thus supports:
1 NAME James Tiberius /de Kirke/ III
2 GIVN James Tiberius
2 SPFX de
2 SURN Kirke
2 NSFX III

The plugin cannot handle 2 NPFX Captain with 1 NAME Captain James Tiberius /de Kirke/ III because it is impossible to differentiate whether the first word is a Prefix or a Given.

The GEDCOM specification says that the level 2 parts should only be used if the 1 NAME format cannot be used.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
User avatar
davidf
Megastar
Posts: 951
Joined: 17 Jan 2009 19:14
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: UK

Re: Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Post by davidf »

AdrianBruce wrote: 20 Jun 2022 14:32 I'm not sure how useful a critique of the GEDCOM format in this area is, but there are some oddities. Consider the (lightly twisted) name and parts thereof:
1 NAME James Tiberius /de Kirke/
2 NPFX Captain
2 SPFX de
2 NSFX III

Note that only some of the NAME has been further analysed into components. There's no given name and no surname. So far as I can see from the GEDCOM 5.5.1 soecification, this is entirely legal. But it might make a designer of a consistency check think a bit.

Secondly, and I'm not sure this is a problem, note that the values given by NPFX and NSFX (prefix and suffix to the name as a whole) do not appear in the NAME, but the SPFX (prefix to the suname) does appear in the NAME. It may not be a problem but it does feel a little inconsistent. Why not have:
1 NAME Captain James Tiberius /de Kirke/ III
2 NPFX Captain
2 SPFX de
2 NSFX III
Why not? Well, one good reason is that it is "significantly in conflict with concepts already in use" as David puts it.
...
I think the problem is with the use of the words prefix and suffix - particularly with regard to surname prefix - in the context of us understanding NAME:SURNAME to be "the surname".

I think NAME:<QUALIFIER> is a construct outside GEDCOM. Is it even a safe assumption that NAME:GIVEN_ALL+NAME:SURNAME = NAME?

NPFX and NSFX are bits before and after the NAME - not the first and last elements of the NAME (which would be prepends and postpends?).
GEDCOM 5.5.1 p89 - https://gedcom.io/specifications/ged551.pdf wrote:NAME {NAME}:=
A word or combination of words used to help identify an individual, title, or other item. More than one NAME line should be used for people who were known by multiple names.
I have italicised the bit that I think refers specifically to INDI.NAME - as opposed to its use elsewhere.

In UK usage NAME is initially what is on our birth certificate - it does not have prefixes like Miss or Master and probably does not have suffixes like jnr or III. If I was to acquire an academic qualification, my name does not change even if it is prefixed by Dr or suffixed by PhD - what may have changed is my mode of address in formal circumstances or on particular media.

Where it got messy was the kludge of allowing the slash convention so that you could distinguish what in Anglo-spherical countries we used to call Christian Names and Surnames, then in more secular times First Names and Surnames and then Given Names and Surnames in recognition of Far Eastern conventions of Surname First. I think we are now discussing the next evolution.

I think the definition of Surname Prefix, if not the name, may be rightish:
GEDCOM 5.5.1 p92 - https://gedcom.io/specifications/ged551.pdf wrote:SPFX {SURN_PREFIX}:=
A name piece used as a non-indexing pre-part of a surname.
My emboldening to highlight the inconsistency in GEDCOM
AdrianBruce wrote: 20 Jun 2022 14:39 By the way Name Prefix and Name Suffix (abbreviating their names) are described as non-indexing but NAME_PIECE_SURNAME_PREFIX doesn't mention non-indexing, so it's not clear whether FamilySearch intend the Surname Prefix to affect "indexing" or not. I can't actually see any use for it if it doesn't.
I think the "use for the Surname Prefix" is simply to hold "that bit" apart from the indexable part (SURN), yet still allow the reassembling of "Surname" i.e. NAME:SURNAME. The problem is that SURNAME and SURN are not necessarily the same!

Adrian is I think quoting from the "Primitive Elements of the Lineage-Linked Form" Section starting on p41:
GEDCOM 5.5.1 p56 - https://gedcom.io/specifications/ged551.pdf wrote:NAME_PIECE_SURNAME_PREFIX:=
[ <NAME_PIECE> | <NAME_PIECE_SURNAME_PREFIX>, <NAME_PIECE> ]
Surname prefix or article used in a family name. Different surname articles are separated by a comma, for example in the name "de la Cruz", this value would be "de, la".
I am working from "Appendix A Lineage-Linked GEDCOM Tag Definition" which starts on p83. Which takes priority I'm not sure - but the bit I follow omits the confusing stuff about commas!

Perhaps the bit about commas is to handle multiple prefixes "Prof., Sir" "George /Porter/" "OM, PRS, FRSE" - and the author thinks "de la" is two prefixes rather than a single two word surname prefix? (Although curiously you cannot do that with the actual NAME field - "More than one NAME line should be used for people who were known by multiple names." p89)

For GEDCOM perhaps long term the NAME PIECES need to be free form "Key: Value;" pairs with systems holding a default set of "Keys"? So we could hold:
NAPC = "NPFX: Prof.;"
NAPC = "NPFX: Sir;"
NAPC = "GIVN: George;"
NAPC = "SURN: Porter;"
NAPC = "NSFX: OM;"
NAPC = "NSFX: PFS;"
NAPC = "NSFX: FRSE;"

But what pending a tidying up of GEDCOM do we want to see to handle the real imperfect world?
David
Running FH 6.2.7. Under Wine on Linux (Ubuntu 22.04 LTS + LXDE 11)
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Post by tatewise »

FYI: NAME:GIVEN_ALL+NAME:SURNAME = NAME is not necessarily true.
Taking Adrian's example
NAME = James Tiberius /de Kirke/ III
NAME:GIVEN_ALL = James Tiberius III
NAME:SURNAME = /de Kirke/
NAME:GIVEN_ALL+NAME:SURNAME = James Tiberius III /de Kirke/

Don't overlook that NAME constructs apply not just to the Primary (Birth) Name NAME[1] but also to all the Alternate Names NAME[2] , NAME[3] , etc, where prefixes and suffixes such as Dr. and Jnr may be applicable.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
User avatar
fhtess65
Megastar
Posts: 637
Joined: 15 Feb 2018 21:34
Family Historian: V7
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Contact:

Re: Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Post by fhtess65 »

But would it really be for one? I'm a user of FH and recently have made it my key software of choice for my tree. I have many Polish names in my tree and as my research goes further back, hopefully, at some point, I may find some Prussian names that will include a von or other prefix.

As two other software packages encounter issues that lead to their users seeking alternatives, I see FH as a good possibility if it can continue to expand and offer features for more than just those with British roots. Let's also not forget that there are many in the UK and the British Isles who do have ancestors from nations with names that have more than one part as well as characters with diacritics etc.

At least one America family tree software developer has already said it won't support diacritics at all!

I see a lot of chatter on various groups based in North America about software and more and more, FH is cropping up as a good alternative. If it can expand to be even more welcoming to those with roots in many places with many languages, it would stand to gain users.

Just my .02 - for what they're worth...

Teresa
Kaaskop wrote: 19 Jun 2022 10:28 @Helen and David,
Thank for your reaction. You don't have to apologize there is nothing wrong with your valuable input. The discussion you are having is much more important then why I want to change from program.
Let's be honest CP would be crazy to rewrite their software for one foreign user. On the other hand they would also be crazy when they don't listen to their experienced users who are discussing the future of FH and the possibilities on that route.
---
Teresa Basińska Eckford
Librarian & family historian
http://writingmypast.wordpress.com
Researching: Spong, Ferdinando, Taylor, Lawley, Sinkins, Montgomery; Basiński, Hilferding, Ratowski, Paszkiewicz
User avatar
davidf
Megastar
Posts: 951
Joined: 17 Jan 2009 19:14
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: UK

Re: Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Post by davidf »

tatewise wrote: 20 Jun 2022 16:56 FYI: NAME:GIVEN_ALL+NAME:SURNAME = NAME is not necessarily true.
Taking Adrian's example
NAME = James Tiberius /de Kirke/ III
NAME:GIVEN_ALL = James Tiberius III
NAME:SURNAME = /de Kirke/
NAME:GIVEN_ALL+NAME:SURNAME = James Tiberius III /de Kirke/

Don't overlook that NAME constructs apply not just to the Primary (Birth) Name NAME[1] but also to all the Alternate Names NAME[2] , NAME[3] , etc, where prefixes and suffixes such as Dr. and Jnr may be applicable.
Yes I wondered about the role of III (in the above example you quote and possibly the more specialist Richard III /of York/); I think in your context III is part of the Given Name rather than a suffix - and we therefore have the Given Names interrupted by the "Surname".

Where Wilbur /van Splink/ II has a son, would he register him as Wilbur /van Splink/ III?
David
Running FH 6.2.7. Under Wine on Linux (Ubuntu 22.04 LTS + LXDE 11)
User avatar
davidf
Megastar
Posts: 951
Joined: 17 Jan 2009 19:14
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: UK

Re: Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Post by davidf »

fhtess65 wrote: 20 Jun 2022 17:06 ... I'm a user of FH and recently have made it my key software of choice for my tree. I have many Polish names in my tree and as my research goes further back, hopefully, at some point, I may find some Prussian names that will include a von or other prefix.
Teresa

From trashing around trying to get to grips with some of the international issues (i.e reading Wikipedia and other internet sources) I see reference in discussion of Polish Names to
WIkipedia wrote:praenomen (or given name), nomen gentile (or gens/Clan name) and cognomen (surname)
Do you recognise this distinction and does it have applicability in genealogical research? If so how would you "slash write" such a name in the NAME field? And how well does that meet your present and future requirements? Are there other structures that may appear unusual to English-centric users?
David
Running FH 6.2.7. Under Wine on Linux (Ubuntu 22.04 LTS + LXDE 11)
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Surname prefix (SPFX) -- more generally, handling structured names.

Post by tatewise »

David, don't get hung up on the suffix being III as it may just as easily be Jnr, Snr or PhD. It is anything suffixed to the surname.

The point is that the GIVEN_ALL qualifier returns all except the /surname/ part from NAME regardless of whether it is a given name or not.
FH says: "All given names - ie. everything except the surname."

Likewise, the MIDDLE qualifier returns all except the 1st given name and /surname/ part from NAME regardless of whether it is a given name or not.
FH says: "All middle names - i.e. everything except the first name and the surname."
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
Post Reply