Hallo, ich möchte eine Gruppenregel erstellen, die Familien gleichen Namens nach mehreren Orten zusammenfasst (damit ich danach ein Clan-Fact erstellen kann)
Beispiel:
surnames containing “Haag”
AND
places containing “Schmallegg”
das klappt auch.
Wenn ich aber noch alle
places containing “Berg” (casesensitiv)
haben will komme ich nicht weiter.
Es ist ja eine Bedingung %Surname AND (%Place OR %Place) also geschachtelt
Wie kann ich das für weitere Places erreichen?
Besten Dank
Thomas
%Place OR %Place OR %Place OR %Place OR %Place OR %Place OR %Place OR %Place OR
%Place OR %Place OR %Place OR %Place OR %Place OR %Place OR %Place OR %Place
AND %Surname
That is an assertion (your emotion), but explain what the program DOES NOT DO that you expect it SHOULD ?
I found it necessary to create three groups to accomplish what you wanted, but it did work for me.
Even with all the amazing new Advanced Search and Groups capability in RM11, it had seemed to me that it was still lacking full Boolean logic with parentheses and AND and OR and NOT. But I think I was wrong. It can involve making multiple groups as I have done here, but it now appears to me that you can use multiple groups to get the effect of parentheses. And AND and OR and NOT are certainly there.
It might be possible to do this with just one group, but if so then I couldn’t figure out how to do it. The problem is that you can string a bunch of AND and OR and NOT conditions together in one group, but if you do so then I cannot see a way to insert the needed grouping with parentheses. I hope there’s a way to do it that I’m missing, but I don’t see it.
I did wonder if Any Fact → Place is really what you want. It probably is. But I could possibly see restricting it to particular fact types such Birth and Marriage and Death. I think doing so would be possible, but it might make the group definitions a bit more complicated – again because of the lack of supporting parentheses in Boolean expressions.
ja richtig; die Unterstützung von Boolean Expressions ist leider der “Knackpunkt”, den RM in RULES wohl definitiv nicht leistet.
In der Tat verteilt sich meine Famlie Haag mit insgesamt 800 Mitgliedern auf 4 wesentliche geographische Ortsgruppen z.B mit Orten, die sich nur in den Ortsnamen unterscheiden.
Somit der einzige Weg, für jeden dieser Orte eine separate Gruppe anzulegen und per Rule zu füllen.
Meine Überlegung war, ob ich für diesen Zweck ein fact z.b. “Clan Haag Schmalegg” anzulegen.
so etwas wie hier. Wie müsste denn das “Sentence template” aussehen?
Ich brauche wohl in jedem eine Gruppe, um das fact zu setzen ??
Your idea to create a special fact could work, but I don’t think it’s necessary. Let me try again. Here is how you could do your Clan Haag Schmalegg. Make a group with just two rules, in this order.
Your next three groups would follow the same model. If the next clan is Clan Haag Hamburg, make the next group as follows.
The BUT NOT on the second rule, plus the “not Haag” for the surname sounds like an unnecessary double negative. But it’s necessary because RM’s rules add people to the group and remove people from the group rather than being Boolean unions and intersections. So Rule #1 is adding everybody from Schmalegg and Rule #2 is removing everybody whose surname is not Haag. What you are left with is everybody who is from Schmalegg and whose surname is Haag. You will probably want to mark the surname as birth or married to include the spouses, but that may not be what you need, Mark the surname whichever way meets your needs.
ich habe das probiert:
danach ist RM11 abgestürzt und ich musste dem Computer neu starten.
Was habe ich falsch gemacht?
I can’t explain why RM crashed. But I don’t think the way it’s defined is going to work. Instead, make two groups.
Here is the first group.
Here is the second group.
Then you can look at each group separately. If you want to look at the two groups as a single group, you can make a third group which is the first two groups combined together with an OR. When you combine the two groups together with an OR, do not specify the surname and place again. Rather, make the third group by using the first two groups combined with OR. That’s the only way I know of to get the Boolean logic to come out right if you want to combine all your criteria together.
There is no real limit on how far you can expand on this concept. For example, you could make four separate groups for the four families you have talked about. Then you can make a fifth group by combining the four groups together with OR. But you can’t make the four families into one group all at the same time without making the separate groups and then combining them. The Boolean logic just won’t work correctly that way,
