* Associated Person feature

[E Wilcock]

There has been recent mention of Associated Persons in fh. As a newish user this is new to me and I would like some guidance please. I cannot find information in the Knowledge base or the FHG Forum, tho as Mike knows I am not the worlds greatest searcher.

I have come to fh from TMG where one could associate people by having two principals for an event. It allowed one to link employers to employees and apprentices to their masters.
In fh I have used witness roles to do this, tho my original idea was to give up using witness roles unless individuals were actually witnesses e.g. of a will or at a baptism or wedding.

Is there a facility for associating people in fh?

I have read the info in Ancestral sources, where I think household members may be linked via a single source? But my data has not been entered using AS.

[Jane]

You can use associated people in FH, but personally I would stick to use the Witness function as it's better supported in reporting and is bidirectional.

[tatewise]

The Associated Person feature is a standard Gedcom mechanism, and prior to FH V6 Fact Witnesses, was the only way to link people who were not relatives. That is why it is mentioned in AS where it is still supported as an alternative to Fact Witnesses.

A Knowledge Base search for Associated Person gives these articles :-
ancestralsources:tutorial:templates:associated_individual_types|> Ancestral Sources Tutorial ~ Working With Templates ~ (4) Associated Persons
fhugdownloads:contents:property_box_tabs_associated_persons|> Property Box Tabs: Associated Persons
how_to:recording_credibility_of_family_relationships|> Recording Credibility of Family Relationships

The Associated Person feature is not as well supported in FH as some of us would like.
It is difficult if not impossible to include Associated Person relationships in Reports and Diagrams.
If you use the Property Box Tabs: Associated Persons download, then associations can be easily edited.
Otherwise, use the All tab, right click the person's name and choose Add Miscellaneous > Add Associated Person.
Note that these are one-way associations, so if you want the other person to be linked back to the first, then they need an association too.

In FH in its Search Help enter "Associated Person" including the quotes and the topic How to Record Other Types of Relationship is listed, but does not add much to what I have said above.

[E Wilcock]

Thank you both of you.
When I posted, it slipped my mind that a most important use of this in some of my family is to record the women "domestics". The Nannies remained for years in some families and we have their names, photographs and even souvenir presents brought back for their charges when the Nannies returned after visiting their homes.

These employees are listed on some census entries. Other are not tho I still used recipes named with their surnames. So I have in the past searched for lost cooks and nursery maids. Not always with success. If I do find them, I enter them in their own right as unrelated.

I usually make a note on their occupation event that they were Nanny to my father or grandfather. But how would one use the witness here? Do you add a witness to the occupation Event? I havent been consistent.

So your association suggestion sounds good. I have been a great user of the Text search since coming to fh.

[E Wilcock]

Mike - I did find all those references before posting. But the first dealt with AS, the next with putting in an Associates tab. And the third with a situation I was not facing.

[tatewise]

Yes, you could add a Fact Witness to the Occupation fact of the nanny.

The Fact Witness would be your father or grandfather, and the Role would be say Ward.
You would need to define that Role in the Tools > Fact Type definition for the Occupation fact.

Otherwise, you would set up an Associated Person link, one in each direction, nanny to ward, and ward to nanny.
But you cannot set Date periods or Place/Address details except in the local Note.

Experiment with the two options to see what is feasible, before committing to one of them.

[E Wilcock]

Thank you Mike - as always. I will do as you suggest and explore this.

[jimlad68]

Sorry for this belated response, just catching up, but it is a subject dear to my genealogy heart.


I use ASSOiations instead of Witness etc or any none genealogically related individuals. The main reason I have never used Witnesses is because it is not GEDCOM standard and exports to other genealogy databases very badly, if at all. Having said that ASSOs do not export that well either! And I must admitt 'my jury' is still out as to which is the lesser of evils.

In particular I use 2-way ASSOs via AS for marriage witnesses, but also for things connected to probate and wills, funerals, baptisms etc.


I also use a custom fact 'Note_Common_Source'
with this fact advanced option 'Use Override Template for Facts tab Listings':
Cmn_Src: < {_place}:> {%FACT.SOUR[1]>TITL%}: {%FACT.SOUR[2]>TITL%} : {%FACT.SOUR[3]>TITL%} : {%FACT.SOUR[4]>TITL%}
and this sentence
<br>[] See Common Note Source(s) <for {date:COMPACT}><: {_place}:> <<br> - {%FACT.SOUR[1]>TITL%} > <<br> - {%FACT.SOUR[2]>TITL%}> <<br> - {%FACT.SOUR[3]>TITL%}> <<br> - {%FACT.SOUR[4]>TITL%}>
-- With this I can create a Source to show a connection between various people, for instance from a probate, or a family 'circumstance'. e.g. source titles might be:
V_Probate~19060629~Samuel MORL (18251112-19060530) (mentions-Edmund Morl, Ann Sutton)
Family Note~Levi Buxton+Sarah Jane Hilson~19010330~Family split up at 1901 census
-- The source detail would then show on reports.


Post TMG I am now converted to 'type 1' sources and theoretically see no reason to use witness or ASSO. If Sources are the basis of all things, all relationships/facts/Witness/ASSO can be connected/calculated via Sources. The problem is that I have not found a genealogical program that connects people (reports, trees etc) via Sources (only by facts, parent/sibling etc). I have no doubt there would be a way to do this in FH via either a query or plugin, but way beyond me.

FH is not good at reporting ASSO (neither some other things like the new PLACES), but FH being what it is there are often ways around it:


<> For diagrams I use this in the text scheme (1+ finds all for diagrams):
- check if there is an ASSO to add some text
=ExistsText(%INDI.ASSO[1+]%,"Assoc")
- if it is there this will print it
:%INDI.ASSO[1+]>%

<> In a sentence you can add to a fact like this with my BIRTh (I should add I use sentences to tabulate my data rather than a readable text flow):

[][]____ {individual} ____[][] ::Parents= {%CUR_PRIN.~FATH[1]>NAME[1]%}({=LifeDates2(%CUR_PRIN.~FATH[1]>%,STD)}), {%CUR_PRIN.~MOTH[1]>NAME[1]%}({=LifeDates2(%CUR_PRIN.~MOTH[1]>%,STD)})<br> [] BIRTH: <{date:COMPACT}><: {_place}> < <br> {note}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[1]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[1].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[2]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[2].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[3]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[3].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[4]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[4].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[5]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[5].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[6]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[6].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[7]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[7].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[8]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[8].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[9]%}> <~~ {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[9].RELA%}> <<br> [] ASSOCIATION: {%CUR_PRIN.ASSO[10]%}>

Unfortunately in FH you cannot yet use the 1+ 'all occurances' in sentences.

<> In the property box I use the tab detailed by Mike above.

<> A query for ASSOs (N.B. I think the "INDI.ASSO[1+]>" does the same as "INDI.ASSO>"
my filename: C:\ProgramData\Calico Pie\Family Historian\Queries\Custom\0_Ind_ASSOsiations.fhq

[Family Historian Query]
VERSION=3.0
TYPE=INDI
DESC=
A complete list of Individuals in the current file, in alphabetical order.
This query has the same columns, and shows the same data, as the Record Wi
ndow in its default configuration, when installed.
.
TITLE="All Individuals"
SUBTITLE="%#x"
ORIENTATION=LANDSCAPE
TAG="Individual","INDI",,,158
TAG="Record Id","=RecordId()",,,57
TAG="Associated Person1+","INDI.ASSO[1+]>"
TAG="Associated Person01","INDI.ASSO>",,DESC,80
TAG="Associated Person02","INDI.ASSO[2]>"
TAG="Associated Person03","INDI.ASSO[3]>"
TAG="Associated Person04","INDI.ASSO[4]>"
TAG="Dates","=LifeDates(,STD)",,,57
TAG="Birth Place","INDI.BIRT.PLAC",,,61
TAG="Relationship to Root","=Relationship(FileRoot(),,TEXT,1)",,,109
TAG="Updated","=LastUpdated()",,,64
TAG="Physical Description Descriptor","INDI.DSCR.TYPE"
TAG="Father","INDI.~FATH>"
FILTER=GEN,EXC,IF,N,"","INDI.ASSO>",,"null"


<> There is also 'Create a 2-way Association' (from FHUG DavidNewton20140720) at 2-way associations (11338)
you can download.


I'm sure there are 'neater' ways of doing these things but they work for me. If anyone has other useful examples they woud be warmly welcomed for perusal!

[tatewise]

Jim, regarding your comment about connecting Individuals by Sources are you aware of the View > Record Links command?
Just select the connecting Source record and use the command to list all associated records.

For more detailed and flexible connections use the Where Used Record Links Plugin.
This allows multiple Source records (or other type of record) to be chosen and produces a detailed Result Set of all usage.
That allows inspection of the associated Individuals, or Facts, or whatever links to the original chosen records.

[jimlad68]

Mike, yes, by chance I was just looking at Where Used Record Links, excellent. However I was thinking more in terms of reports and analysis. And I admit I have not wholly thought this through. e.g.

- FH would give the option of adding to a report people connected to the same source (that would also include distant and non relations). Either with the Fact, or an extra list to the Source text, i.e. the equivalent of an ASSOsiation. This could get messy if you have 'generic' sources, but then a filter would be required.

- A report of non genealogical connections via source records (say to show same non related witnesses at different weddings, people cropping up at different census places with the same related families), a bit like FaceBook does with Friends of Friends.

- A report of all individuals connected to an individual via all their sources (filter out 'generic' sources or have a selection like 'Where Used Record Links') showing their relationship or none. Where there is no relationship, do their connections link back to other relations of the original. That might also make sense of who lives where with who over the years.
Not sure if that makes sense, and sounds mighty complicated analysis, but I suppose it is all about making connections with distant relations and non related.

I'm thinking on my feet here a bit. This is rather pedantic but works.
- Perform a custom query on All Facts filtered for an individual that has columns for Sources %FACT.SOUR[1]>%, %FACT.SOUR[2]>%, %FACT.SOUR[3]>% etc
- Select the relevant sources (can only select contiguous cells, but 'generic' could be filtered I suspect)
- run 'Where Used Record Links' plugin
- Add individuals to named list
- Change the FH file root person to the individual concerned.
- perform custom query on that list with =Relationship(FileRoot(),,TEXT,1)
- A list of relationships to the root.
- Then repeat that for all individuals and output to a report! Should take a while.

[tatewise]

That would probably best be performed by a Plugin - but I am not offering to write it.

[E Wilcock]

Although I havent got as far as doing any of this, it seems an important topic for both family historians and people using genealogy software to list non family groups - a Place study or an Army unit.
I too resolved to give up using witnesses after leaving TMG but it doesnt work out so well in practice.
For instance soldiers and their relatives who attended a reunion 20 years later - Or multiple and unidentified people mentioned in a will.

I use the witness function for that as it means that if I find myself with a moment to spare, I can bring up a list of as yet unidentified people to work through. To be sure of not losing the list one can also can add the list as text from source -
And that (I think) would come out in a report.

I am very simple minded when it comes to software and I still havent a clue what the chunks of coding mean that are posted on threads but it seems to me that there are very simple ways of doing most things in fh.

[jimlad68]

Mike, I don't blame you, sounds very messy. AND, having slept on it overnight I think my suggestion was only the first part. Having got the first set of 'A list of relationships to the root' the same would need to be done to each of those individuals, or at least those not related, and then again!

However, the initial 'A list of relationships to the root' (Original individual) would be useful and is an extension of your 'Where Used Record Links' plugin which I might use in the above scenario in future.

[E Wilcock]

I am once again trying to enter associated people - and have forgotten how best to do this.
These people are employees and collaborators. Women secretaries and so on.
Is there any assistance with this in fh7?

For instance if two people co-author a play or book.
Many people escaped Nazi Germany because they were assisted by their boss or employer.

[jimlad68]

In V6 I add most of my associations via Ancestral Sources. The other way I use is via ALL tab > R click on individual name > Add Misc > Add associated person.

Also check here https://fhug.org.uk/kb/download/associated-persons-3/ for a useful tab for the property box. (does not say V7)

Also check out this old topic [topic]11281|ASSOciation tag vs Method ... es[/topic] where Mike gives his usual detail.

[jmurphy]

I am once again trying to enter associated people - and have forgotten how best to do this.
These people are employees and collaborators. Women secretaries and so on.
Is there any assistance with this in fh7?

For instance if two people co-author a play or book.
Many people escaped Nazi Germany because they were assisted by their boss or employer.

In an earlier post you mentioned a Place study or an Army unit. Here we have an employer.

My rule of thumb about entering data in FH is to follow the lead of the sources. I use Associated Person to connect names which are found in the same document -- the officiant in a marrige, the informant on a certificate, the bearers at a funeral, grandchildren in the grandparents' household where the exact relationship isn't known, etc.

If I have a military pension which has affadavits from other unit members, I link the people who are in the pension file with Associated person. If I want to keep track of all people serving in a partcular military unit, I add their names to a Named List.

I would not use Associated Person for employers very often because I don't know the employee's supervisor or directly related co-workers. I would be more likely to use a Named List for people who worked for the same company. Obviously, if I had more information about the internal structure of a company, I might have sources that would prompt me to use Associated Person to link particular individuals.

I'm not saying this is the Best Practice. It is what works for me. I'm posting this so you can bounce your own ideas off it. Hope that helps.

[jimlad68]

first, apologies my link with
"Also check out this old topic ASSOciation tag vs Method ... es (11281) where Mike gives his usual detail."
was wrong, I'll try again: ASSOciation tag vs Method 1 Sources (11281)

Also this old topic gives a very useful plugin from DavidNewton "Create a 2-way Association" I have no idea if it will work on v7 but is OK on v6. (There is a download link in the original post)
2-way associations (11338)

Code: Select all

--[[
@Title:          Create a 2-way Association
@Author:          David Newton
@Version:          0.0
@LastUpdated: 
@Description:       Applies to two individuals
]]
pi1=fhNewItemPtr()
pi2=fhNewItemPtr()
pi1c=fhNewItemPtr()
pi2c=fhNewItemPtr()
pi1cr=fhNewItemPtr()
pi2cr=fhNewItemPtr()

require("iuplua")
while pi1:IsNull() do
tRec=fhPromptUserForRecordSel('INDI',2)   -- check that two records have been selected
   if   #tRec ~= 2 then
         button=fhMessageBox('You need to select precisely two individuals','MB_OKCANCEL')
      if button=='Cancel' then break end
   else 
      pi1=tRec[1] pi2=tRec[2]
   end
end   
if pi1:IsNotNull() then   
   pi1c=fhCreateItem('ASSO',pi1,true)
   fhSetValueAsLink(pi1c,pi2)
   pi2c=fhCreateItem('ASSO',pi2,true)
   fhSetValueAsLink(pi2c,pi1)
   pi1cr:MoveTo(pi1c,'~.RELA')
   pi2cr:MoveTo(pi2c,'~.RELA')
   res,relat12, relat21=iup.GetParam("Relationships",nil,"Relationship of "..fhGetDisplayText(pi2).." to "..fhGetDisplayText(pi1)..": %s\n".."Relationship of "..fhGetDisplayText(pi1).." to "..fhGetDisplayText(pi2)..": %s\n","","") 
   fhSetValueAsText(pi1cr,relat12)
   fhSetValueAsText(pi2cr,relat21)
   tAssoc={relat12,relat21}
   tRev={pi2,pi1}
   fhOutputResultSetColumn('Associate','item',tRev,2,120)
   fhOutputResultSetColumn('Relationship to','text',tAssoc,2,120)
   fhOutputResultSetColumn('Name','item',tRec,2,120)
end

[ColeValleyGirl]

Just glancing at that plugin, it will need some changes to work in FH7 (especially to avoid closing the whole programme when you close the plugin).

[jimlad68]

Just glancing at that plugin, it will need some changes to work in FH7 (especially to avoid closing the whol eprogramme when you close the plugin).

Thanks for the heads up, there are a few non "plugin store" plugins I use that will need checking as I move to FHv7 (Not sure whether I should wait until I get my scheduled new laptop). Being at best an IT "scripter/modifier/bodger" I hope Calico Pie or the FHUG Knowledge Base will provide step by step instructions.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I hope Calico Pie or the FHUG Knowledge Base will provide step by step instructions.

Writing Plugins Compatible with Versions 5, 6 & 7

[PeterR]

I tried the above-quoted Plugin on the Sample Project in FH7 and it seems to work perfectly as is.

[ColeValleyGirl]

PeterR, if a plugin uses iup it needs the following to ensure it always closes properly, not matter how an Iup dialog is closed.

Code: Select all

require ("iuplua") -- this was optional before Family Historian 7
if tonumber(iup._VERSION) >= 3.28 then
  iup.SetGlobal("CUSTOMQUITMESSAGE","YES") --if you don't include this, FH will exit when the plugin exits
end

[PeterR]

That Plugin certainly needs better error handling for the final input dialog , but I could find no way of ending it that caused FH to close.

[jimlad68]

I tried the above-quoted Plugin on the Sample Project in FH7 and it seems to work perfectly as is.

Thanks for the testing Peter. I imagine there are many useful non "plugin store" plugins that will need to be tested and or amended. I suppose ideally I/we need a "system testing" routine, say something like Notepad++ compare gedcom files before and after, and then being noted (as you have) on the forum.

P.S. thanks also to Helen for her comments

[tatewise]

Maybe Plugin Authors, like David Newton in this case, could be persuaded to publish their Plugins.
It is really not difficult.