View this PageEdit this PageAttachments to this PageHistory of this PageHomeRecent ChangesSearch the SwikiHelp Guide
Hotspots: Admin Pages | Turn-in Site |
Current Links: Cases Final Project Summer 2007

Questions on Spring 2004 Milestone 5

Part of the requirements for the web search is to allow the user to update an existing person from search results.

Colin Minihan

In M4 we added the functionality to have multiple geneologies.

Colin Minihan

From Assingment:

"Search criteria may include any of the kinds of information that can be entered interactively about individuals ..."

Does this mean any writable attribute of our Person class or does this mean ANY information, including what family an individual is a part of, name of wife/husband of individual, name of parents of individual, etc?

Colin Minihan

The web search requirements state that we must notify the user if no results are found. There is no such requirement for the local search. Can I assume that I will not receive any points off for not notifying the user with a "No Results" message if no matches are found when conducting a local search?

Colin Minihan

How do we handle merging two people with unused fields from a GEDCOM file? Do we combine all the unused fields for both people into one big collection? I think this might cause us to run into situations that would violate the GEDCOM format if we do this.

If two people have a FIELDA (just a field I made up) in their unused GEDCOM fields and we merge them. The resulting Person has FIELDA occurring twice, thus when written out to GEDCOM, FIELDA would occur twice within one person record. What if FIELDA is only allowed to occur once and we're in violation of the GEDCOM format...

Any thoughts?)

Ray Cole

Put the second one in a Note field. That's a safe place to stash extra stuff. Rich LeBlanc

Do you mean unused or unsupported. The unsupported fields we know nothing about, hence why they're unsupported. Do we need to interpret these now for correctness?
Andrew Sayman

Well, we're not really making any distinctions in our implementation. If it's not a field that maps directly into our data structure (name, sex, birth, death, etc.), we just through it into a collection and perform no checks on it. My concern was if by merging two records and thus merging these collections we end up with duplicates and therefore not a valid GEDCOM format.

It would seem to me that if we read in two records from a valid GEDCOM file, merge them, and then output an invalid GEDCOM file that this would be bad... whether we support the fields or not...
Ray Cole

It would be bad, but how can we possibly know that we've done that if we don't support the tags? We have absolutel no knowledge about their side-effects, or the side-effects of their duplication.

We ran into this with TRLR, and just decided to understand what that tag means, so it was added to the supported stack. Other tags though probably have much more complex meanings than TRLR...
Andrew Sayman only lets you search by last name and first name. How are we expexted to search by everything except notes?

There are a lot of different search engines accessible through rootsweb. It's like a portal site for genealogy. I think saying "rootsweb" was their idea of a joke. Instead of using the search boxes on the home page, click the "searches" link at the top. Some of the databases there are much more detailed. (with thanks to Ellie Harmon.)
Here is another one to try: You can search for a name and then screen the results based on other info you are looking for. Rich LeBlanc

Link to this Page