GenoPro Support Forum

Each table layout in GenoPro has a type of reference column (Reference, Father(s), Mother(s), Mate(s) etc . . .).  It lists the texted name of the individual or family etc... with a hyperlink that passes, i assume, the ID of an individual or family. The Export To Text dialogue allows the user to export these columns as their Permanent IDs (in other words, the column lists the IDs instead of the individual or family names).  I think it would be beneficial if GenoPro had a "referenceID" column in the table layouts as well.

I created custom tags that hold the IDs of a reference column.  But the method for retrieving those IDs seems superfluous.  The Export To Text dialogue can create this, so why not just have the referenceID columns already in GenoPro?

Example...

It's also good for each "reference" column to have one datum per field.  Perhaps GenoPro could be setup to automatically add new columns when additional "references" are added to an individual.  For example, instead of 3 mates in one cell, there would be a column for mate01, mate02 and mate03 etc . . .

Edited: Thursday, April 26, 2007 by rfiorille

You have a good point.  By the way, before releasing GenoPro 2007, we spent several days discussing the file format of GenoPro.  Those meeting on the whiteboard were important to decide what is best for future releases of GenoPro.  Our conclusion is having as much information linked to the primary record, such as all the contacts, occupations and education records grouped under the <Individual> node.  Similairly, the <Unions> should be stored under the <Family> node.  Having this mechanism will no longer require merging, nor having IDs for unions, contacts, occupation and education records.  This will be the best of both worlds, since a user could therefore generate an XML file without having to worry about IDs.

Since the release of GenoPro version 2.0 was late, we decided to leave it as is.  Changing the XML file format at last minute could be very dangerous to introduce a fatal bug - such as having users loosing data.

My issue is not so much with the merged unions.

I wanted to use the Union IDs to reference back to an individual's relationship (whatever type) with another individual.  I can't do this because some Union IDs are shared.

I agree that within the use of GenoPro software, the merged unions don't pose a problem and are probably the best solution for GenoPro.

Nevertheless, many of the custom tags I create are columns in the individual's table for IDs relative to the particular individual.  I do this for my database.  I like the database to have, for example, the name of the father, as well as his ID.  I make the mateName columns because I need the names in their own cell, instead of 2 or more per cell.  I populate these ID columns using Export to Text by Permanent ID.  I copy the Father row and paste it into the fatherID column in the table layout and the same for mother, mates, etc . . .  The mates required more work, but I was able to populate them.  Luckily the most mates any individual in my tree has is 3!

If you made a build version of GenoPro, it would be better if it were geared more in this way . . . and it would be very cool of you.

Edited: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 by rfiorille

If two unions are the same, as two occupations, should they be consolidated?  Could they be useful for "statistics", as two identical occupations?

Families are different because they have positions (x,y) on the screen and therefore cannot be merged.  Unions are not visible.

I can make a build for you so you can try a non-merging version of GenoPro.  What about occupations and education records?  At the moment, they are all merged too.

Edited: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 by GenoProSupport

I believe the union object represents the 'unique' relationship between 2 individuals.  Therefore, it would not be merged, and it would have its own ID.

To make an analogy, if 2 family objects were identical (i.e. names, births, deaths, children), but were infact different families, should they be merged?  Should they share the same ID.

In this case, if union objects are merged, then they seems to represent a type of relationship.  Perhaps I am understanding the union object incorrectly.

Edited: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 by GenoProSupport

We did a revision and could not find a tangible benefit of not merging identical objects.  As a result, the Union object is automatically merged with another identical Union.  Is this a problem?  If this causes a problem, please let me know.  I am willing to create a private build so you can test the non-merging version of GenoPro.

The code remains unmodified as of Version 2.0.0.4.  Are there plans to discontinue the merging of some objects any time soon?

Edited: Monday, April 23, 2007 by GenoProSupport

I understand it makes little sense to merge some identical records.  A few weeks ago, we had a meeting regarding the validity of merging identical education records, as well other type of records such as occupation and union.

Jean-Claude and I both agree GenoPro should not merge identical Union records.  At the moment, the code remains unmodified until Beta 19 (complete revision of XML tags).  During Beta 19, we will give a full review of our data tags and the built-in [merge] policy for each type of objects.

Your input on this is greatly appreciated.

Edited: Friday, August 18, 2006 by GenoProSupport

I think that discussed problem has relations to my topic about "Additional spouses" in the report generator (in "How to" chapter of this forum).

Thing is that if you have two individuals married and both before had sposes (divorced) and they hyperlinked from different genomaps - in the report they would be shown as

First marriage then

Second marriage

and then Third marriage but with data identical to first or second one.