New Nomenclature for "Event" Now the Law
Jun 14, 2022 20:36:47 GMT -8
Post by Uncle Buddy on Jun 14, 2022 20:36:47 GMT -8
Treebard differentiates between conclusions and assertions, which are called findings and claims in the code. Conclusions/findings are what the genealogist says about an an element of genealogy such as an event, attribute, or name, while assertions/claims are what a source says about an element.
Since the assertions/sources dialog is finally being built, the shortcut term "event" is now being eliminated from all Treebard modules in support of the fact that Treebard is pioneering a separate-but-linked structure for conclusions and evidence in genieware, and our slogan is "Evidence--Assertion--Conclusion".
"Event" is better than "fact", but not by much. We should speak about evidence, not facts. We don't prove things; we try to do so by compiling evidence.
However, the word "event" is still needed for three things.
1) When the point-of-view is that of the software user (the genealogist), the more specific terms are used, such as "conclusion" or "assertion", because the user is the source of the conclusion or the recorder of the assertion. But "event" is still correct when the point-of-view is the experiencer of the event. If we say, "Rupert M. Rutherford graduated from law school. The event took place in 1875," this is correct. It would be wrong to say that the "conclusion" took place in 1875.
2) When for technical reasons involving the Treebard data structure, an element of Treebard applies equally to findings or claims, the term "event" can be used instead of saying "findings and claims" or "conclusions and assertions". For example, in the database we have a single table of event types such as "birth", "death", "marriage" which are used for either findings or claims.
3) In discussions where the difference between "event" and "attribute" is the topic.
I'd like to defend the nuances here being enforced on user and developer. The nuances for the developer will mean that developers who don't think these things matter won't want to work on Treebard, and that's fine. For the user, the difference between what the source says and what the genealogist says is an important distinction. Treebard didn't invent assertions. Assertions have always been an important part of genealogy, because there have always been various sources in conflict with each other about what really happened, and the genealogist has always had the option to decide in favor of one source or another, or somewhere in between.
Assertions have always been important to genealogists... until genealogy became computerized, or should I say semi-computerized, since the assertion (what the source says happened) was completely omitted from all the early genieware. Even most programs that have a way of recording sources have no way of recording assertions separately from conclusions. Some creators of evidence-based genieware have tried to make up for this. Treebard's approach is to carefully separate conclusions from sources, then insert the assertion between them, so the link is still there but it's indirect. This stresses the fact that neither the source nor the software decides anything. It's the software user who looks at the assertions and decides what really happened. His conclusions go into the conclusions table, only linked to the assertions (which are linked to the citations), but not backwardly influencing the assertions in any way.
In this way Treebard hopes to do its part to de-popularize the currently all-too-common unsourced family tree. When the importance of multiple assertions along the way to a conclusion are literally dumped into the genealogist's lap as a full-blown entity that actually exists and clearly does something in the user interface, hopefully more people will go to the trouble of linking their conclusions to what the sources actually say.
Since the assertions/sources dialog is finally being built, the shortcut term "event" is now being eliminated from all Treebard modules in support of the fact that Treebard is pioneering a separate-but-linked structure for conclusions and evidence in genieware, and our slogan is "Evidence--Assertion--Conclusion".
"Event" is better than "fact", but not by much. We should speak about evidence, not facts. We don't prove things; we try to do so by compiling evidence.
However, the word "event" is still needed for three things.
1) When the point-of-view is that of the software user (the genealogist), the more specific terms are used, such as "conclusion" or "assertion", because the user is the source of the conclusion or the recorder of the assertion. But "event" is still correct when the point-of-view is the experiencer of the event. If we say, "Rupert M. Rutherford graduated from law school. The event took place in 1875," this is correct. It would be wrong to say that the "conclusion" took place in 1875.
2) When for technical reasons involving the Treebard data structure, an element of Treebard applies equally to findings or claims, the term "event" can be used instead of saying "findings and claims" or "conclusions and assertions". For example, in the database we have a single table of event types such as "birth", "death", "marriage" which are used for either findings or claims.
3) In discussions where the difference between "event" and "attribute" is the topic.
I'd like to defend the nuances here being enforced on user and developer. The nuances for the developer will mean that developers who don't think these things matter won't want to work on Treebard, and that's fine. For the user, the difference between what the source says and what the genealogist says is an important distinction. Treebard didn't invent assertions. Assertions have always been an important part of genealogy, because there have always been various sources in conflict with each other about what really happened, and the genealogist has always had the option to decide in favor of one source or another, or somewhere in between.
Assertions have always been important to genealogists... until genealogy became computerized, or should I say semi-computerized, since the assertion (what the source says happened) was completely omitted from all the early genieware. Even most programs that have a way of recording sources have no way of recording assertions separately from conclusions. Some creators of evidence-based genieware have tried to make up for this. Treebard's approach is to carefully separate conclusions from sources, then insert the assertion between them, so the link is still there but it's indirect. This stresses the fact that neither the source nor the software decides anything. It's the software user who looks at the assertions and decides what really happened. His conclusions go into the conclusions table, only linked to the assertions (which are linked to the citations), but not backwardly influencing the assertions in any way.
In this way Treebard hopes to do its part to de-popularize the currently all-too-common unsourced family tree. When the importance of multiple assertions along the way to a conclusion are literally dumped into the genealogist's lap as a full-blown entity that actually exists and clearly does something in the user interface, hopefully more people will go to the trouble of linking their conclusions to what the sources actually say.