The Behold User Forum
Login to participate
  
Register   Lost ID/password?

Louis Kessler’s Behold Blog     The Behold User Forum

Blog Comments

  
Results 271 - 280 of 740 blog comments.   1253 blog entries.   496 forum posts.   2489 total.
271. 

How to Program Dates for Genealogy - Blog comment by lkessler - 21 Feb 2016

Thank, Dirk. I've now fixed this in the article. I likely will change the double dates to 1 character when I implement Behold's own external file format. If and when I do, I'll try to remember to update this article.
272. 

Sort of a Date - Blog comment by dirkb - 21 Feb 2016

Great article! This will help me a lot with GEDCOM dates in my software (www.ahnenblatt.com). I found one minor issue ... In example GEDCOM file (datetest.ged) you have marked with a NOTE whenever there is an invalid GEDCOM date. You use "@#DHEBREW@ 02 TIS 5250" which is not marked as invalid ("TIS" ...
273. 

How to Program Dates for Genealogy - Blog comment by dirkb - 21 Feb 2016

Great article! This will help me a lot with GEDCOM dates in my software (www.ahnenblatt.com). I found one minor issues ... "CBYYYYMM*AA" is not quite correct - it should be "CBYYYYMDD*AA" (month only one character, the two characters for day were missing). - Dirk
274. 

And Now … GEDCOM 3.0! - Blog comment by janmurphy - 9 Feb 2016

For the benefit of your readers who didn't follow the discussions on FHISO's list, I'll put my two cents here. I agree with you that the source record format is needed because I was trained to work from the source material first and then extract the data from it. The extracted data, when separated for each ...
275. 

Sex in GEDCOM - Blog comment by lkessler - 15 Jan 2016

Very likely! I missed that because GEDCOM 5.5.1 does not refer to "U" as "UNKNOWN" but as "Undetermined from available records and quite sure that it can’t be". GEDCOM 5.5 only allowed M=Male and F=Female and had size 7. It did not allow U or Unknown. But GEDCOM 5.4 allowed M=Male and F=Female and ...
276. 

Sex in GEDCOM - Blog comment by tamura - 15 Jan 2016

You ask, why {size 1:7} if the allowed values are the one-letter values M, F, U? Well, the full words for the possible SEX values are MALE, FEMALE and UNKNOWN, and that last word is 7 letters long. The rest of the explanation is either the usual sloppy FamilySearch editing, or one FamilySearch's systems ...
277. 

A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by lkessler - 5 Jan 2016

cp: I have about 4 books on genealogy numbering in my library, including one by Richard Pence which Mark Forkham refers to. Like Mark, I'm not really enamored by any of the traditional numbering systems, especially when you are combining going up the tree and going down. Mark's is a good attempt, Thanks ...
278. 

A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by cp - 5 Jan 2016

Although, again, not directly relevant to DNA, there does seem to be a bit of reinventing the wheel on how to record complex 'transverse' relationships here. My favourite is Mark Forkheim's system from over ten years ago... http://www.forkheim.ca/family/num3.html http://www.forkheim.ca/family/num2.html
279. 

Everything In, Nothing Out - Not Helpful for DNA. - Blog comment by deckie49 - 29 Dec 2015

AMEN!!!
280. 

A New Notation for DNA Relationships?? - Blog comment by lkessler - 24 Dec 2015

Thanks for the ideas, Rob. I was thinking about using lower case for descendants and upper case for ancestors as you suggest. Instead of "?", I was thinking of Z and z. And that would be good for an extension of this notation. But my specific purpose for this notation is to identify the DNA relationship. For ...