kj_norway wrote:
"In most countries outside of the USA the church is the collector of information and thus should be the jurisdictional "PLACe" in birth/death/mariage facts."
I would say that churches are a major collector inside the U.S. as well. Civil record keeping in my U.S. states of interest was very poor, so I get the lion's share of my pre-1900 information from churches.
kj_norway:
"Modern mapping tools are geared toward modern locations and rarely know how to map these places as a hierarchy."
I wouldn't expect this from genealogy software, but the hierarchy can still be a way to look at your *data*. When I say that, I don't mean mapped out. I just mean being able to see all of the events that took place on or below a certain jurisdiction.
In fact, most times that I use the Places workspace, I wish that I could close the Bing mapping utility. I only need it on occasion, and it's far less useful to me when working with places than Wikipedia is. I'd be perfectly content doing the majority of my work in this space just with text.
kj_norway:
"One of the "sneaky" things I do with regarding the difference between church and state"
That's a clever workaround, but I wish you didn't have to do it. I can't believe how behind on this concept all the software is. Even GenTech's Genealogical Data Model falls short of the community's needs.
kj_norway:
"All of the subsiquent generation after my grandfather have SOURce titles of Naustdal Kommune, Sogn og Fjordane Fylke, Norge."
I still stick with the ecclesiastical jurisdiction when the source is the parish register, but I see what you're doing and understand what it communicates.
Source: http://boards.ancestry.co.uk/topics.software.famtreemaker/9000.1.1.2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1/mb.ashx
mario batali lone ranger aaron brooks dave matthews band solar flares 2012 whitney houston will toyota recall
No comments:
Post a Comment