ViewsWatchers |
[add comment] [edit] Refinement of date edits [6 October 2020]Question to the WeRelate community: The following dates are not well-formed (according to GEDCOM and WeRelate standards):
I would like to automatically change them to (respectively):
That is, for bet/and and from/to, if the first year is missing, use the second year and if the first month is missing, use the second month. Are these reasonable assumptions to make? Does anyone object?--DataAnalyst 19:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
[add comment] [edit] Date Qualifiers [2 nov 2020]The date qualifiers are often misused and perhaps under-defined in the GEDCOM specification. CAL is for calculated dates. To me this is calculates to a single values, such as age 67 y. 3 m. 10 d. at death can calculate a specific birth date. EST is an algorithm using some other event date. To me this is age 67 at death, which actually could allow for two different birth years, depending at what point in the year they were born and died (perhaps more given certain ambiguity in age at death, i.e., age 67 versus in 67th year). But, is a birth 2 years from sibling an algorithm? (N.B. use of EST should ideally include specification of the algorithm used by the poster so it is clear to the reader.) ABT means the date is not exact. This is a bad definition, it is ambiguous. Does it mean the date is not specified exactly (i.e., ABT Oct 1813), or the date is not known exactly (something that is also true of CAL and EST). Based on documents I find on the Internet, I assume the later, the implication being that the previous qualifiers do not apply, so more of a guess and not based on any calculation or algorithm. So having expressed some of my frustration with the poor definition of these qualifiers and the resulting common misuse, which I think makes easy design of these issues hard, but is largely a side issue... I think if you are going to replace SAY, it should be changed to ABT and not EST. It is basically a guess with no real basis, much closer in meaning to ABT. I like SAY for various reasons, but appreciate it is not in GEDCOM, even if commonly seen in literature. --Jrich 16:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Given the looseness of the definitions and the lack of consistency in usage, we'll probably just have to agree to disagree. In practice, what I see is that ABT is used pretty consistently when an age is given, and EST is more likely to be used when there is less information (think of WFT EST year ranges, which probably influence how many people think of EST). The same web page I cited earlier gives this guidance for using "about"
Not to say that the web page is an authority, but it does indicate how others view "about". What I think has happened is that people don't use EST, but use ABT for all approximations and estimates, so it is hard to know how to interpret it. I tried to find something in a book or journal article and the first thing I found was the Bulkeley genealogy (p. 13) in which the birth year of Rev. Edward Bulkeley is given as "abt 1540" (page 14 says "born not far from 1540", apparently based on dates of his education) and the birth date of his wife (Olive Irby) is given as "say 1547" with no explanation, so presumably based on the approximate marriage year. The author (Jacobus) chooses to use "abt" and "say" with apparently different intentions, and I would say that he estimated Olive's birth year. He also uses (p.13) "say" to interpolate birth years between generations - again, I would call that an estimate. I'm going to go ahead with converting "say" to "est" because I do think it reflects someone's estimate. I kind of like "say" myself because of its connotation but as my husband pointed out, it probably confuses the heck out of people who don't understand English well.--DataAnalyst 22:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Great improvement, i just found out about it but have already noticed the implementation on the platform (month names Mixed). I use Abt in several cases. One is adding a birth record, where the age of a parent is given. Then i calculate the birth year of this parent. - Step one. i subtract the age of the parent from the child's birth year. - Step two. if the child's birth month is in the range Jan - Jun, i subtract another one year. Two is adding a marriage record, where the ages of the bride and groom are not available. Then i assume both people are Abt 30 years old. - Step one is to calculate the estimated birth year for both, by subtracting 30 years from the marriage year and then to round this estimated birth year to the nearest half decade (xxx0 or xxx5) - Step two is to add this estimated birth year. - Step three is ... at some later time ... to go back into the search form and find people who are tagged with birthdate Abt xxx0 or xxx5, so i know i want to find these ancestors and retrieve their records, such that i have inventoried the siblings of the groom / bride. It is basically a method to create an exponential to-do list Three is adding a marriage record, where the ages of the bride and groom are available. Basically i then merge methods One and Two. - Step one the age of the bride, minus her age, is her birth year. If the marriage is in the range Jan - Jun, her birth year is one year earlier. - Step two is i subtract 30 years, round to the nearest five, and add the marriage record for the parents of the bride, entering no marriage date, but entering both parents with the estimated Abt xxx0 or xxx5 birth year. Hope this helps. Thx Ron woepwoep 07:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC) [add comment] [edit] Hiccups [8 October 2020]Currently looking at Person:Sarah English (10) Birthdate 5 Feb 1703/04 says "suggested: 5 Feb 1703/4". Project page says "ensure split-year dates are formatted as yyyy/yy". GEDCOM says [ <NUMBER> | <NUMBER>/<DIGIT><DIGIT> ] which says both digits are required, no optionality indicated. Also, burial has no date, just a location, is generating "Incomplete date". --Jrich 18:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
|