Are we talking about modeling relationships, or about portraying them? Relational databases can model just about anything with a regular, defined structure. And TW, in turn, can model anything in a relational database, albeit without the tools that prevent conflicts that real relational databases have. So it requires discipline. But you may have to abandon hope of doing it with just tags, and simple models where everything you need to know about Joe (marriages, encounters, offspring, etc.) is contained in a single tiddler.
In a relational database I might start with a table of individuals. Then I might have a table of biological mates that pair the two. Each pairing has a unique id. Then another table of marriages. Each pairing has a unique id. In the individuals table, there might be a field to indicate a link to which biological pairing represents parentage, and another to indicate which marriage represents parentage. Actually at this point I might check out if someone has already produced a data structure, rather than have to think of every possible situation myself. But you can see that already you can quickly locate biological and acknowledged sibling pairings. With the right structure, you should be able to produce lists of whatever relationships you want to know about. Portraying the relationships graphically is a different matter, since the existing graphing technologies use their own idiosyncratic relationship structure. It might be that, after creating the relationship data for physical representations, you have to then run a process that produces the data (in separate tiddlers) for the graphical representation. Assuming that tmap or whatever you use is up to the job. -- Mark On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 4:08:30 PM UTC-7, @TiddlyTweeter wrote: > > Cioa TonyM > > Thanks for the positivity! > > I'm slightly skeptical as I been round this issue a few times :-) > > It looks easy at Level 1. But at the level of my "Father's Eldest > Brother's Youngest Daughter's First Daughter" I'm not so sure. That is a > description of a relationship chain. How many tags would that be, just to > represent the linkages between "Father" and .... "First Daughter"? > > Part of the issue with depicting kinship anthropologists solved well was > to clear delineation between AFFINITY (roughly, marriage) and DESCENT > (roughly, children). If you can figure a way to do that so that each person > is BOTH potentailly an AFFINE and a DESCENDENT (but diferentiable) in an > economic way I'd be interested. My suspicion is you will rapidly get > swamped in tags and not find a solution beyond generation 3 from > complexity. :-) > > Best wishes > Josiah > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/7f97fa7c-09a1-4db2-9097-df66d27b73f9%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
