I use Enrolled, Drafted, Enlisted, or Mustered In (depending on the way they joined) in the description of a ‘Vocational : Military Service’ Event for a branch (Army, Navy, Militia, etc.) of service. Typically, I’ll create a separate one of these for each enrollment… and prepend the description with the war. e.g., “Civil War service : Mustered in, private, 100th Penna Vol. Infantry, Union”
And ‘Attached’ for when they are assigned to & join a unit/formation (fireteam, squad, platoon, company, battalion, regiment, division, etc.)
I don’t like how I have it organized yet. It doesn’t work well for career military personnel.
I had tried to do this with the current architecture and the idea worked out well until I tried to run a Narrative web report. The legal persons’ associations were “listed” in each person page, but not actually linked, so the other ‘natural persons’ associated with the same legal person were not visible/clickable.
I did try to ask for a filter some weeks ago (here and in a feature request) to accomplish this which would force-‘include’ associations (aka legal persons) in the Narweb output (something like "associations for persons matching ") but it didn’t seem to spark interest in this idea at that time.
In truth the Narweb should do this listing&linking for associations but it is not as easy as you might think. You would have to have a new ‘Associations’ entry on the Narweb navigation bar for Associations as well.
I proffered the idea of such a filter as a work around so that the hard work of (a) adjusting the Narweb report, and (b) modifying the person to fork an option as a legal person, could be accomplished at some later point. I just assumed that the additional filter might actually allow the current Narweb to both list and link. I might be wrong on this point but the additional work to only write a new filter for associations might be re-useable elsewhere too. We have very few associations filter now actually only one as far as I can tell.
I think if we can institute a new type of person as a ‘Legal person’ for which associations can occur with natural persons (regiments, clubs, political factions, corporations, churches, prisons, etc) we could re-use all the current code (well almost!) and have events, media, and so forth and then report out using much of the code-base we already have.
The notion of sub-events might go away mostly since we already have a functional ontology if we institute legal persons!
I’ve tried to create a “family” to represent that, also to represent regiments genealogy (one battalion from regiment A and another from regiment B are merged together to make regiment C) and… it didn’t work well at all !
You wrote that many times in this thread but I don’t understand how you work with. Could you share some example how you do it and work with?
(May be in English or in English language countries departments are companies entities, they are this in french language too, but in France, departments are really administrative places like county or town. France is divided into 101 departments)
Then you will really like one of the place enhancements coming with 5.2.
Right now, places have one enclosed by hierarchical structure. Under the 5.2 enhancements, the current structure will be its AdministrativeHierarchy Type. A place can have more than one Hierarchy. Suggested others are Cultural, Geographical, Judicial, and Religious.
So a church can have its Administrative hierarchy and it can also have a Religious hierarchy.
When setting up various place display profiles, you would set which Hierarchy Type the profile will use.
I did not do too much exploring of this capability so cannot (at this time) provide many details other than what I just posted.
I’m waiting for it, yes…
We can already set multiple hierarchies, but only those with correct “dates” are used in reports for a time period, so I’m curious for what more that comes exept the possiblity to create Events with Places as subject…
Wondering if it will be possible to list two hierarchies for a place in reports and so on…
I guess I just need to wait and see…
The Type Structure will be a great addition…
The 20th Maine and 83rd Pennsylvania are shared events with people who fought in the battle. I created an event for the 15th Alabama which fought on the other side as a what if scenario.
I’m coming back on this. I’ve try somethings and I’m not convinced with the only use of places.
Two examples:
About sharing. A company like yours was fined during its trial against another. How to tell this using an event and two companies as places (and even a third place as the court place). I try it but the only way i found was to share that event between two legal personas (or persons - in french juridical language both physical, i.e humans, and legal, i.e company, association, etc… entities are persons: personne physique, personne morale).
About time. For regiments, when multiple events occurred at the same time, i.e. two battles in two different places, for the same regiment, how gramps could choose which time hierarchy in places to use for that place/regiment?
Focusing on first example:
I’ve a print company, so place is okay to associate it to a standalone printing event (without associated persona) but it’s not for that trial event I cite before.
When something is done in that place, it’s okay , but if something happen to that entity represented by that place it’s not.
May be it will when events associated with places will exist, so I could add a role, like accused, to the event, sharing it with another place or people, with the defendant role.
But trial place should still missing unless it were possible to attach an event with one place (trial’s place) to another (companies places). If so, this should solve regiment time issue too.
In @DaveSch screenshot both places are the same (attached events place and place they’re linked to). Does this will be possible?
In the screenshot I created, you are correct, I shared events that were shared with several people with the Place record.
A Place record will be able to have its own Event records. What a user does with these entries I am not totally sure. This is a feature request that I never fully understood the need for or how it would it could be used.
My little test of sharing the People battle events back to the Place was just my limited test of a way I would/could utilize the feature.
I see this topic is a few months old, but how did this work out? There are two ideas, as I can read out.
One is the idea of a master timeline with events occuring in the world, part of the world, country etc. Maybe this should be a separate view in the navigator? And as with the Geography-view, I can display master events, and add a persons events, a familys event and so-on. And in different reports, there might be possible to include these master-events.
They are also importent for research. I.e. in Norway, it was imposed by law, to have fixed last name. This occured in 1916 (it was at same time, prohibited for male to take his wife’s last name…)
In Gramps master events, this would be present as a event, placed in Norway, in the timespan 1916-1964. And every person living somewhere within this timespan, will have this displayed, if I choose to display master-events.
Second is the suggestion of an entity as a ship, a vehicle, a business/store etc, with their own events added. And possibility to add them to people. The backside of using a person as legal person/organisation etc, would also be when making a relation graph.
This Events for Places is still in the coding phase and will not be released until version 5.2. I created a quick test of an early iteration of the code to see how this was working. As you can see, I shared a person event back with the Place. In my Little Round Top example, the place of the event is Little Round Top but also a “participant”. I actually had relatives in the 20th Maine and 83rd Pennsylvania and shared their events. I added the 15th Alabama as an event only on the place. The 15th fought for the South in this battle but I did not have relatives in that unit.
Personally I do not see myself using this feature (I could be wrong) but I know other users are eager to see this feature. How it will be used will probably be as varied as there are users.
The best example for Place Events would be specific Place Studies that many people do…
e.g., research a farm/property for all people that has owned and lived there since it was built.
or a study of a small city/community where you want to register a majority of place specific events and be able to relate people in the community to the different Events without having the Event attached to one specific person as “primary” owner of the event.
or as I wanted to use it, to register movement and events for ships over the whole lifespan of the ship, including journeys, repairs, owners, as well as manifests and other documents that is tied to the ship, not to a person that was onboard the ship…
And then add relation to the different Events for sailors and other people that at some time and for some reason has some relation to that ship.
It os not the most useful feature if you “only” do lineage-linked research, but if you do some research of places or entities that can be registered as a place, it will be a very useful feature…
Same as the Main-Sub Events, that doesn’t make sense if you "only do lineage-linked research where a person always “own” the Event.
