Ahnentafels as IDs, Sharon Carmack
Replies: 17
Re: Ahnentafels as IDs, Sharon Carmack
 leekaiwen
(View posts)
|
Posted: 29 Jun 2004 9:18PM GMT |
Classification: Query
> Published in 1999 … it is totally out dated by computer developments
Hmm, out of curiosity, what “computer developments†have occurred in the last five years that would obsolete Carmack’s book?
Carmack addresses specifically the organization of source documents – obits, wills, land records, etc. As long as we still have them (and I have a LOT), there will be a need to organize and file them. It’s true that the computer gives us organizational tools that we’d never dreamed of before, but my computer can’t organize the boxes of documents I have in my study. That’s where Carmack’s book comes in.
> Just use Family Tree Maker 11
Actually, I use Master Genealogist. Wonderful program, though it takes a long time to adequately learn some of its better features.
> Ahnentafel are hardly used anymore
I’d have to disagree with this statement. My own files are FULL of ahnentafels – I use them every day, as do thousands of genealogists around the world. They’re incredibly useful. Even Master Genealogist prints them on my pedigrees. I don’t see ahnentafels disappearing anytime soon.
> Register (Descendant Ordered) — This format is
> accepted by the New England Historic Genealogical
> Society … is used to establish "pedigree."
This statement is in error. The Register system is a DESCENDANCY system, not a pedigree system. It is used for numbering descendants. Ahnentafels are used to number ancestors. As the two systems serve different purposes, it would be wrong to assume the Register system could replace ahnentafels. But neither system answers the needs I was addressing – namely, the numbering of collaterals.
Further, the Register system has several flaws. First, it doesn’t number descendants’ spouses, only the descendants themselves. That is to say, for example, in a paternal descendancy chart, your mother would not be numbered, nor would your paternal grandmother. Secondly, the Register system runs into difficulty when more descendants turn up, or birth orders are revised. Once descendants are numbered, those numbers are set in stone. Any subsequently discovered children cannot be incorporated into the numbering scheme, they must be tacked on at the end. Similarly, if new data requires revision of birth orders, original numbers must be retained. Thirdly, not every individual in a descendancy is necessarily numbered – only those whose lines will be followed up on later.
Eventually, one ends up with a big mess of out of sequence numbers that makes little sense. And the fact that the Register system doesn’t number everyone makes it unsuitable as a filing scheme, which is what I’m interested in in this thread.
> NGS Quarterly (Descendant Ordered)
> Ahnentafel (Ancestor Ordered)
None of the above systems is suitable for the purposes I was discussing – the numbering of collaterals. The three systems you mentioned number direct-line individuals only, which makes them inadequate for filing systems.
Thanks for your reply, Hugh.
Lee Kaiwen
Hmm, out of curiosity, what “computer developments†have occurred in the last five years that would obsolete Carmack’s book?
Carmack addresses specifically the organization of source documents – obits, wills, land records, etc. As long as we still have them (and I have a LOT), there will be a need to organize and file them. It’s true that the computer gives us organizational tools that we’d never dreamed of before, but my computer can’t organize the boxes of documents I have in my study. That’s where Carmack’s book comes in.
> Just use Family Tree Maker 11
Actually, I use Master Genealogist. Wonderful program, though it takes a long time to adequately learn some of its better features.
> Ahnentafel are hardly used anymore
I’d have to disagree with this statement. My own files are FULL of ahnentafels – I use them every day, as do thousands of genealogists around the world. They’re incredibly useful. Even Master Genealogist prints them on my pedigrees. I don’t see ahnentafels disappearing anytime soon.
> Register (Descendant Ordered) — This format is
> accepted by the New England Historic Genealogical
> Society … is used to establish "pedigree."
This statement is in error. The Register system is a DESCENDANCY system, not a pedigree system. It is used for numbering descendants. Ahnentafels are used to number ancestors. As the two systems serve different purposes, it would be wrong to assume the Register system could replace ahnentafels. But neither system answers the needs I was addressing – namely, the numbering of collaterals.
Further, the Register system has several flaws. First, it doesn’t number descendants’ spouses, only the descendants themselves. That is to say, for example, in a paternal descendancy chart, your mother would not be numbered, nor would your paternal grandmother. Secondly, the Register system runs into difficulty when more descendants turn up, or birth orders are revised. Once descendants are numbered, those numbers are set in stone. Any subsequently discovered children cannot be incorporated into the numbering scheme, they must be tacked on at the end. Similarly, if new data requires revision of birth orders, original numbers must be retained. Thirdly, not every individual in a descendancy is necessarily numbered – only those whose lines will be followed up on later.
Eventually, one ends up with a big mess of out of sequence numbers that makes little sense. And the fact that the Register system doesn’t number everyone makes it unsuitable as a filing scheme, which is what I’m interested in in this thread.
> NGS Quarterly (Descendant Ordered)
> Ahnentafel (Ancestor Ordered)
None of the above systems is suitable for the purposes I was discussing – the numbering of collaterals. The three systems you mentioned number direct-line individuals only, which makes them inadequate for filing systems.
Thanks for your reply, Hugh.
Lee Kaiwen