tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post9064225733181805579..comments2024-03-21T19:08:05.737-07:00Comments on Genealogy's Star: Are there really any genealogical standards?James Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-47753221558829908582013-08-30T12:25:43.919-07:002013-08-30T12:25:43.919-07:00Tongue in cheek... Try some of these translations ...Tongue in cheek... Try some of these translations of the original / true meanings of a number of place names in the USA. <br /><br />http://www.kalimedia.com/Atlas_of_True_Names_USA.html<br /><br />(thanks to MH Forsyth on http://blog.inkyfool.com/2013/08/true-american.html)Adrian Brucenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-69505050607866001022013-08-29T12:42:55.852-07:002013-08-29T12:42:55.852-07:00People will only follow a standard if it benefits ...People will only follow a standard if it benefits them. So if they want to interface their data to some sort of mapping program and the names are unknown to the mapping software - or even worse, known but in the wrong place - then this will encourage them to get it right.<br /><br />Since Brno is a place in the Czech Republic, then 3 of those people will either get puzzled or will learn something. <br /><br />There are several points on the score of mapping. Firstly the mapping seems to be fairly fluid in its searching, so it will find stuff even if it's not exact.<br /><br />Secondly, generalised mapping stuff works, so far as I know, only on current placenames, so it's no encouragement here to use the contemporary county.<br /><br />What's needed is someone to produce fantastic looking maps showing contemporary boundaries and names that can be used to map your relatives on. Only then will anyone be interested in getting the contemporary names. <br /><br />But even then, it's no use if the rest of the software doesn't recognise that "San Bernardino, Los Angeles, California" is the same physical place as "San Bernardino, San Bernardino, California" and your chap hasn't gone walkabout.<br /><br />So, never mind the data entry - when's the software going to make it worthwhile to get the data entry right?<br /><br />Couple of points from one of the Small Islands on the eastern side of the Atlantic - acknowledging Bill Bryson's book title there...<br /><br />1. Is there a reason why you don't put "County" on the county name? "San Bernardino, Los Angeles, California" looks like a suburb of Los Angeles to me. "San Bernardino, Los Angeles County, California" would be more meaningful to me. <br /><br />2. Please put "USA" (or whatever) into the placename. Firstly omitting it is terribly parochial. (Nice to see you include it, James). Secondly, I just have this blind spot that I can never remember which side of the border Michigan and Manitoba fall, so clues would be helpful! Adrian Brucenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-84754428712898043992013-08-29T11:56:21.695-07:002013-08-29T11:56:21.695-07:00This place example is quite easy to solve James. I...This place example is quite easy to solve James. I commented elsewhere that the actual place-names used to identify each item in the place-hierarchy-path and largely irrelevant. This, in turn, was because every place can have alternative names/spellings, just like people.<br /><br />Before anyone rushes to counter this, just consider, for moment, those cases (the majority as it happens) where you have positively identified a place named in some record. In principle, even if two people refer to it in different ways, they can still agree they're referring to the same place. What is missing is an independent way of nominating a place, i.e. other than by its place-name or place-hierarchy-path. Something analogous to a "place citation".<br /><br />Well, this is where a place-authority would come into place (www.parallaxview.co/familyhistorydata/research-notes/persons-places#PlaceAuthority). Such an authority could allocate identifiers (e.g. UUIDs or URIs) to unambiguously refer to each registered place.Tony Proctorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18330460400737261264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-77040952784881630262013-08-29T11:29:27.431-07:002013-08-29T11:29:27.431-07:00Russ, many people do not hesitate to leave a mess ...Russ, many people do not hesitate to leave a mess to others to clean up. Unfortunately, it's part of today's culture. Thank you for your attempts at curbing the epidemic :-)<br /><br />In general, doesn't standardized place names in drop-down lists on Ancestry and FamilySearch perpetuate the problem and contribute to the failure of educating someone on the history of a locality? Do those who create the databases for these and other companies know this type of history? Is there no business incentive to be this accurate? And, as far as USA or United States, and like considerations, in my experience it all depends on the decision-makers of the moment.Lynn Broderickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12952393057577915973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-30944300251714781542013-08-29T11:02:50.423-07:002013-08-29T11:02:50.423-07:00There is a lot of discussion about the problems wi...There is a lot of discussion about the problems with standards in genealogy - whether citing sources or place names or even the names of individuals ... what I haven't seen are any proposed solutions.<br /><br />Perhaps instead of rehashing all the same old arguments ("look at how wrong THIS one is ..."), we come up with a plan for whatever standards are needed and a way to implement them that ALL of the software developers are willing to use. Oh wait ... someone IS already doing that ... FHISO (http://fhiso.org/). Clearly, more individuals, developers, and organizations need to be involved in those discussions - the more input, the better. There is an ongoing call for papers (see website) for this very topic.<br /><br />Bottom line is that until there ARE standards, nothing is going to change.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08626456511113834140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-19177013335870094962013-08-29T10:46:42.026-07:002013-08-29T10:46:42.026-07:00I loved this post. I suspect that most people sta...I loved this post. I suspect that most people started out by having some family documents or hand written pedigrees written by memory of an ancestor. That info got recorded and the individuals interest grew. Years late, after having input much, a deeper understanding comes along and they realize that sources and notes and the like actually exist. Nobody starts out as a professional genealogist. Nobody learns all of this before making their first entry. I am grateful for any info any person records.Grandpa Landmeierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18397287163921539683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-29532010685352363312013-08-29T10:04:11.298-07:002013-08-29T10:04:11.298-07:00Consistency is a desirable quality, but any placen...Consistency is a desirable quality, but any placename "standard" has to cope with some realities that your example doesn't highlight.<br />A placename documented in a family database should be based on the current evidence found and evaluated by the editor(s) of the database. If the research is on-going and/or the documentation does not give a complete and unambiguous identification of the place, then a full and, hopefully, historically accurate placename is not yet possible.<br />Current conventions discourage abbreviations, but allow for missing components and permit variation, especially for internationalization.bgwiehlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904956507742860598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-52354899738539872312013-08-29T07:45:08.389-07:002013-08-29T07:45:08.389-07:00I've worked on standards (national and interna...I've worked on standards (national and international) in the financial community for decades. In my experience, the only incentive to standardize is when it is financially motivated. It either has to make money or save it. When it is only our data that we don't expect others to share we don't need much of a standard.<br /> In genealogy, if we would value our time spent researching and documenting information we might see the benefits of standards, even if we don't plan to share it widely. Bonniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06494190967174359622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-10818776082111710832013-08-29T07:38:16.708-07:002013-08-29T07:38:16.708-07:00Mr Tanner,
I think the answer or at least part of...Mr Tanner,<br /><br />I think the answer or at least part of the answer, is that people are in too much of a hurry and don't take the time to look at what they are doing.<br /><br />I was helping, or trying to help, a friend with her research. She was just beginning and I was trying to help her get started, especially in the area's that you have spoken / written about. She was looking at a "hint" on ancestry, without spending any time looking at the source, she just wanted to merge that data into her file. She got mad at me for saying 'hold up' ARE you SURE that is your person. She looked that the same and say Yes. She slowed down, while I was watching her, to see that the person what NOT her person, after looking at the details.<br /><br />Your place name example is "in the details" and the suppliers of the data that we are looking at aren't helping.<br /><br />Anytime I find a source, review it, determine it IS my person, I ALWAYS have clean up work to do. I have blogged about that myself. Yes, it slows us down, but in the end, our data is more accurate.<br /><br />I think the answer is "Speed". Let's build our tree NOW, in a hurry and don't worry about the details.<br /><br />Thank you for speaking out about this.<br /><br />RussCousin Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00326890362591254874noreply@blogger.com