I’m wondering why the data model of the associations is uni-directional…
SyncAssociations is useful but it seems to me this should be part of the model…
A bi-directional or (possibly a multi-directional) association could be good if it included different labels for each party, and date ranges would help too.
For example, a person become the guardian of several children. The association is a “guardianship”, one person is the “guardian”, and the others are the “wards” (or whatever labels the user wishes to use). As each child reaches adulthood, they are no longer part of the association.
Currently this can be handled by and event with different roles, but there is only one date range for the event, so a separate event must be used for each pair of guardian/ward.
1 Like
The one-sided Association offers more flexibility.
Sometimes there is no Association in return. (Like a superfan. The idol may be a big part of the superfan’s life. But generally, their idol isn’t aware of them at all.) Sometimes it is an asymmetric Association. (Godparent/Godchild). And sometimes it IS symmetrical. (Neighbor)
It WOULD be more time-efficient if the dialog supported the ability to add an Association in return in the same dialog though.
2 Likes
Associations in Gramps are based on the Gedcom standard. The ASSO tag is uni-directional:
n ASSO @<XREF:INDI>@
+1 PHRASE <Text>
+1 ROLE <Enum>
+2 PHRASE <Text>
+1 <<NOTE_STRUCTURE>>
+1 <<SOURCE_CITATION>>
The DNA Match association in the video is interesting example. It is bi-directional and doesn’t seem natural to model as an event or perhaps a new group concept.
2 Likes
As in a previous reply:
It would be helpful if the Association showed both parties of an Association and if there is any reciprocal/symmetrical association. Right now, it is ambiguous whether the Association describes the Selected person’s relationship with the Active person or the other way around. Having both shown would disambiguate this AND give the opportunity to set up a reciprocal relationship without popping yet another dialog.
Note that my example uses genderless “Godparent”/“Godchild”. The default being “Godfather” when associated person is female (or other) is awkward.
Godparent was added as a standard Role. It is intended for use with shared Baptism or Christening even.
See the “How do we harmonize custom data with a new standard feature?” discussion.
We could display reciprocal/symmetrical associations from backlinks without requiring the user to explicitly enter them. The idea of an association type is quite interesting.
Using an editor to modify two objects is not consistent with the way Gramps currently works and could cause technical issues.
1 Like
Wondered is there might be a better option than ‘none’ as the 3rd type?
- Unidirectional
- Unreturned
- Unrequited
- Unanswered
- Blind
- Unconditional
- Unqualified
1 Like
I find it difficult to recall the directionality of Associations and wonder if others also find it confusing.
Perhaps the Associations tab could have a column with a calculated (using a Name Display format) natural language “Description” of the Association.
Example: (using “Title Initials Surname, Suffix” and a past/present verb tense based on Probably Alive state of both.)
“D. D. Lee, Ph.D is a Biographer of Sgt. A. C. York”
Or the (arbitrary) inverse Association:
“Sgt. A. C. York was a Muse of D. D. Lee, Ph.D”
This Associations tab calculation code could be marked a code example snippet of how one would include an Association in a custom Report. (And an example of how to mark source code as a Useful Snippet in Sphinx developer markdown. Which currently only links 1 snippet.)
Yes. I changed the column heading in my copy of the Associations Tool from “Of” to “Linked Person”, because “Of” seemed incorrect.
Interesting idea. Not sure how easily it would translate into other languages. Even in English, sometimes a different preposition might be preferable (for example, “an advisor to” rather than “an advisor of”, and the inverse should probably be “advised by” rather than “an advisee of”?).
I am thinking that, sooner rather than later, Gramps will have an LLM option to refine rough concatenated sentences into grammatically correct ones.
Naturally disable/enable of such a feature should be persistent across sessions. (To avoid incidents of Gramps Rage.)
There is the addon SyncAssociation that bidirectionally syncs the Associations. There was a previous discussion about certain terminology to be used. The list of options is easily edited to expand and modify the list of options.
1 Like
Yes, then there are TWO associations to confuse me about the directionality instead of just one.
Might be easier to implement as a gramplet in the People category view?
Or maybe add associations to the existing quick view “Person References”, or a new quick view?
I imagine that would be quicker than changing the core, even if only as a proof-of-concept?
1 Like
The Check Associations Data tool is (perhaps) a bit closer. It shows an “of” column indicating direction of the Association… plus a calculated relationship between the associated Persons.
