In my own installation, I did not care to introduce the complications of gender with Godmother & Godfather. The built-in already combined godson and goddaughter. So I replaced those 2 parental associations with a single association:
Isn’t the reciprocal association for a ‘Guardian’, their ‘Ward’?
And I’ve been thinking today of the Godparent association. In the traditional establishment of a Godparent religious relationship, the person MUST be a testifying witness at the Christening event. They make their caretaking vows at that service. So a Guardian could be a ‘role’ in that event that sets implicit associations with both the child and parents.
However, there has been a secular adoption of the Godparent term. I wonder what is the difference between that and the naming of a legal guardian for one’s child in the event of death or incapacitation, either in a will or living will? Isn’t Guardian:Ward better for the secular usage?
This would have the person that was indentured to another person have the Associations tab with the entry: “Indentured Servant”. With my terms the indentured person would have the association “Indentured to”.
And while Bond Holder may be accurate, it is not readily understood.
If you keep the Gender specific keys, won’t the 1st sync create a Reciprocal. Then a 2nd sync will create a Gender Neutral reciprocal to the Association generated in the last run?
Example: “Goddaughter”: “Godparent”, generates a Godparent
then a 2nd run sees the "Godparent": "Godchild" rule and generates a redundant “Godchild” association co-habitating with the “Goddaughter” association?
Yes, it is confusing. In fact, what is most confusing is WHICH DIRECTION IS THE ASSOCIATION ? Is the association how the active person describe themself in relation to the other person? Or is it how they describe that person in relations to themself?
I fear that I am flip-flopping on that.
But what you are missing is that the “Indentured Servant” association how they are related to the person
Now it already exists. And it is identical being "Indentured to” said person.
The Sync is switching over to the wicked “bond holder” and asking how the relationship is seen from the opposite direction.
Yes, if you create an initial Association of Godson, SyncAssociation will create a reverse Association GodParent and then its reverse Association of Godchild. So the initial person will have 2 Associations with the same person - one as Godson and one as Godchild. I dont think I should change the existing Association type (from Godson to Godchild).
Ward - I created a ‘preferred’ relationship of Guardian <–> Guardian of. I also added a Ward → Guardian. So if the user used either Ward or Guardian of, it would create a reverse of Guardian. If they used Ward, it would also create a new Association for the person as Guardian of. Again, two Associations pointing to the same person (the Guardian).
The challenge is: there may be users that have used Godson/daughter or Godfather/mother in the past. I wanted to support these people and get them to the gender-neutral version. Maybe that is ambitious.
I opted for ‘bond holder’ because both the more recognizable terms are “trigger words” related to human trafficking. We cannot even use the words when discussing daisy-chained hard drives.
It is irrelevant that the terms are also applicable to legally compliant (or criminal) holders of apprentices, captives, refugees, indentured servants, redemptioners, and convicts of any gender, religion, race or social strata.