I have emphasized and isolated the sentences in your post to which I am
responding. "Traditionally?" Baloney!
If the programmers knew anything about history, they would NEVER assume that
the biological parents were usually married! Since history began, children have
been born out-of-wedlock! In more recent times, Henry I of England has the
distinction of having the most recognized illegitimate
children of any English king, with more than 20 to his name. Yes, he was
married, but not so for all his mistresses, although they certainly had
children.
To combine "not married" with "had no children" is ridiculous! One poster
mentioned, "dsp" Genealogy has dealt with this issue far longer than Legacy
programmers, and have several abbreviations to cover various circumstances
regarding children. Note that none of these are combined with "not married".
dsp: (Latin, decessit sine prole) died without
issue
dspl: (Latin, decessit sine prole legitima) died
without legitimate issue
dspm: (Latin, decessit sine prole malus)
died without sons
dspml: (Latin, decessit sine prole malus
legitima) died without legitimate sons
dspms: (Latin, decessit sine prole malus suivre)
died without surviving sons
dsps: (Latin, decessit sine prole suivre) died
without surviving issue
And, as one other (or perhaps the same) poster said, many men never knew or
know if they had children. Women, of course, did, but again, were not always
married.
CE
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Chasing the market [was: Any Way to Mark a PERSON ...]
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 21:03:53 +0100
In many ways what you say is correct. It is almost pointless making a costly
change that will only benefit a small number of existing users. But the issues
raised are not, in the long term, in that category.- “not married and
had no children” will become a growing issue with today’s means of creating
children and forming relationships – not least children with 3 biological
parents- Same sex marriage is now legal in many places and will
increase in prevalence. The main point is the first of these, as the business
process within the software appears to be driven by the programmers who are
using a technical, rather than real world, decision. They have looked at the
software requirement and realised that “biologically” each person has two
parents. Traditionally this meant there was a marriage – even though there are
so many examples, even in the Victorian era, of people ignoring these
conventions. What is needed is for the business (i.e. those responsible for
the customer needs) to look at whether this model is still relevant. If not
they need to specify what the model should be. The programmers will then have
to adjust the database structure to satisfy the business need. This may well
mean that the “parents” of a child is a list of people and that this might
include a “married” couple, but not necessarily. Until Legacy accepts that
there is a need to recognise 21C definitions of family, marriage, parenting
etc, then there is little point in objecting to the existing structure. The
database design is clearly so indelibly entwined with the definition of family
that it isn’t possible to “tinker” with the system. Jack From: gerald
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 09 April 2015 20:24
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Chasing the market [was: Any Way to Mark a PERSON ...]
It may appear, John, that what you would like to see in a program is very
logical to you, but the number of other users that feel the same can be counted
on one hand. It is just not worth the time and effort to make those changes for
only a few. I know from personal experience in writiing a simple program that
one little "correction" involves re-writing the entire code for the program,
and I have to ask myself "is it worth all this bother?" just for this little
change before doing anything at all. A better idea is simply to make the
changes yourself. I find that I often have to make it myself for anything to be
the way I want it. So write your own program that does exactly what you want.
Then it will always be perfect. Very logical way to go, I think. Don't wait for
others to do it for you -- do it yourself. Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 at
12:18 AM
From: "John Lisle" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Chasing the market [was: Any Way to Mark a PERSON
...]Jay,
Your (and my?) idea of what the market requires may be different from what
Legacy's management feels is necessary.
What you and I whine about most often are the small 10 cent changes that could
make our lives easier as we go about our business.
I would like to see an L8.1 that picks up a number of these changes.
john.
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Online technical support: http://support.legacyfamilytree.com
Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our
blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com).
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
