On this fascinating thread Dennis wrote:
> Yes, it's that same problem. Taking it further, one could argue that
> different parts of the date should be independently sourced too. For
> example, one source gives the complete date (17 Jan 1850) and another
> source gives only the year (1850). You cannot legitimately apply the
second
> source to the full date. Since I cannot think of any good way to show
> independently sourced parts of dates on reports, I would not suggest going
> *that* far.
I agree with much of what's been written, and I'd like to see sources
attached to each part of an event. I don't think it'll happen. Will make
problem much more complex I think. But there is an easy alternative.
If you have a source for a date, just put in the date and leave the place
blank. And vice versa. Also if you have two different dates (say 1850
and Jan 17 1850) put them each in two different events of that type with
the different sources. I know that's not as elegant as some of us would
like, but it works ok for me. One can then take the most believable
combination of things and store that as a third event with no sources
or with a pseudo souce called Combination or Best Evaluation or whatever.
jr
Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/
To unsubscribe please visit:
http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp
