 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Desktop Feature Requests |
Page:
1... 3 4 5 6 7 ...17  Previous Next
|
|
New naming system |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Changing the name to Family Name also is a blatant violation of the Rules. Follow the Rules and use substring filter to deal with searching.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 18, 2007 |  Posts: 103 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Going fron 3 fields to 2 doesn't solve anything. Unless I am missing something, we will still have to deal with the issue of parsing double surnames. It eliminates "middle" name which doesn't really exist as a concept outside of the US, and is unnecessary since a middle name is still a given name. Double surnames would both go in the family name field. If you're talking about whether to hyphenate them, then no, it doesn't solve that. The main advantage though is the consistency it gives between the handling of Western and Asian names All the given names and all the family names get put into the same fields in the database, meaning everything is correctly sortable and searchable. The tickbox then gives the ability to easily reverse the displayed name order where required. |
| | Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Posts: 103 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Changing the name to Family Name also is a blatant violation of the Rules. Well since we're discussing potential changes to the program and the rules, whether or not it adheres to the rules as they stand currently would seem to be entirely irrelevant. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheFly: Quote:
It eliminates "middle" name which doesn't really exist as a concept outside of the US, and is unnecessary since a middle name is still a given name. Again, I fail to see what problem this solves? Whether or not the concept of a middle name exists outside of the US, and I am beginning to doubt that claim, shouldn't matter. The concept of a second given name does exists and that name would go in the middle name field. Getting rid of a field would require significant work and the merging of the two fields. What is gained, other that the elimination of the field? I see no point in removing a field just for the sake of removing the field. Quote:
Double surnames would both go in the family name field. If you're talking about whether to hyphenate them, then no, it doesn't solve that. Not what I am talking about. Quote:
The main advantage though is the consistency it gives between the handling of Western and Asian names All the given names and all the family names get put into the same fields in the database, meaning everything is correctly sortable and searchable. The tickbox then gives the ability to easily reverse the displayed name order where required. Can't this be accomplished with the current data fields just by adding the tickbox? Again, I fail to see the purpose in removing the middle name field.  | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
| | Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Posts: 103 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Again, I fail to see what problem this solves? Whether or not the concept of a middle name exists outside of the US, and I am beginning to doubt that claim, shouldn't matter. The concept of a second given name does exists and that name would go in the middle name field. Some people have four or more given names, but obviously nobody's suggesting they have separate fields. Why do we need one for middle name when it's just another given name? Look at any official form in the UK for example and you will be asked for Surname and Given Names (or Forenames). In France, it's Nom et Prénoms (if my memories of French school lessons aren't failing me). Given Name and Family Name are international concepts - middle name is not. Quote:
Getting rid of a field would require significant work and the merging of the two fields. What is gained, other that the elimination of the field? I see no point in removing a field just for the sake of removing the field. Combining the two fields is just a trivial database query that Ken can do automatically (unless the Profiler database structure is extremely odd). As I've said, we gain consistency, e.g. the Family Name field ALWAYS has a family name in it. Currently the Last Name fields might have a family name, or it might have a given name, or it might have half a family name. Quote:
Can't this be accomplished with the current data fields just by adding the tickbox? Again, I fail to see the purpose in removing the middle name field. No, because as I said above, currently there is no consistency in what data the fields contain - it might be a family name, it might be a given name, or sub-parts thereof. To make the tickbox useful we'd first have to standardise the data that the fields hold. | | | | Last edited: by TheFly |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,394 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Going fron 3 fields to 2 doesn't solve anything. Unless I am missing something, we will still have to deal with the issue of parsing double surnames. Or even determining if it's a case of a double surname or double given name. "Middle Name" is still a valid concept even if it doesn't really exist as a concept outside of the US. Just because it isn't used universally is no reason to drop it from the functinality of Profiler -- especially when doing so won't solve the problem anyway. Whether you have 2 fields or 3, you have to deal with where to put the doubled elements. Some are clearly part of the Surname and others are clearly part of the Given name. But some are genuine "middle" names, too, despite what TheFly says. | | | Another Ken (not Ken Cole)
Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges.
DVD Profiler user since June 15, 2001 |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,911 |
| | Posted: | | | | I'd hate to see you guys with a dead horse!   | | | | Signature banned: Reason out of date... |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheFly: Quote:
Some people have four or more given names, but obviously nobody's suggesting they have separate fields. Why do we need one for middle name when it's just another given name? Look at any official form in the UK for example and you will be asked for Surname and Given Names (or Forenames). In France, it's Nom et Prénoms (if my memories of French school lessons aren't failing me). Given Name and Family Name are international concepts - middle name is not. I asked what problem it solved and all you have done is tell me you want it eliminated because it isn't an international concept. Again I say, so what. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Quote:
Combining the two fields is just a trivial database query that Ken can do automatically (unless the Profiler database structure is extremely odd). As I've said, we gain consistency, e.g. the Family Name field ALWAYS has a family name in it. Currently the Last Name fields might have a family name, or it might have a given name, or it might have half a family name. This has nothing to do with the field name and everything to do with data entry. Removing one of the fields won't stop this from happening. Quote:
No, because as I said above, currently there is no consistency in what data the fields contain - it might be a family name, it might be a given name, or sub-parts thereof. To make the tickbox useful we'd first have to standardise the data that the fields hold. Again, this isn't a problem that is caused by the number of fields. This is a problem that is caused by bad data entry. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Posts: 103 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
I asked what problem it solved and all you have done is tell me you want it eliminated because it isn't an international concept. Again I say, so what. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The problem it solves is the lack of data consistency. As I said in my previous post, under the current system the "Last Name" field (for example) might contain a family name, a given name, or parts thereof, all of these potentially being valid under the rules. This is a nightmare situation when it comes to sorting or searching the data, or doing any sort of database operations upon it (reports for example). Quote:
This has nothing to do with the field name and everything to do with data entry. Removing one of the fields won't stop this from happening. Quote:
Again, this isn't a problem that is caused by the number of fields. This is a problem that is caused by bad data entry. Changing the field names will have the side effect of fixing the data entry problem (a given name is always a given name, a family name always a family name, no matter what order they are displayed). The middle name field is eliminated because you can't have Given Name, Middle Name, Family Name since a middle name is just an additional given name. |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 2,366 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Again, this isn't a problem that is caused by the number of fields. This is a problem that is caused by bad data entry. The simple fact that many non-US users do not understand when a name should be placed in the middle causes bad data entry. If the middle name field would be eliminated the chance a name could be parsed incorrectly drops from 50 to 25% (and to 0% with a single name field). | | | Martin Zuidervliet
DVD Profiler Nederlands | | | | Last edited: by Daddy DVD |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheFly: Quote:
The problem it solves is the lack of data consistency. As I said in my previous post, under the current system the "Last Name" field (for example) might contain a family name, a given name, or parts thereof, all of these potentially being valid under the rules. This is a nightmare situation when it comes to sorting or searching the data, or doing any sort of database operations upon it (reports for example). And removing the middle name field doesn't change that. Quote:
Changing the field names will have the side effect of fixing the data entry problem (a given name is always a given name, a family name always a family name, no matter what order they are displayed). The middle name field is eliminated because you can't have Given Name, Middle Name, Family Name since a middle name is just an additional given name. First, middle and last are all valid labels where Ken lives. The fact that you don't use them doesn't make them invalid. Again, it seems like you want him to remove one field, and re-label the others, simply because that would follow the standard that you are used to. I am sorry, but that just doesn't make sense to me.  | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Posts: 103 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Quoting TheFly:
Quote:
The problem it solves is the lack of data consistency. As I said in my previous post, under the current system the "Last Name" field (for example) might contain a family name, a given name, or parts thereof, all of these potentially being valid under the rules. This is a nightmare situation when it comes to sorting or searching the data, or doing any sort of database operations upon it (reports for example).
And removing the middle name field doesn't change that. No, but renaming the fields to Given/Family does, and middle then becomes redundant. Quote:
First, middle and last are all valid labels where Ken lives. The fact that you don't use them doesn't make them invalid. Again, it seems like you want him to remove one field, and re-label the others, simply because that would follow the standard that you are used to. Not at all, I want a universal solution that applies to all localities, not just the US. The concepts of given name and family apply just as much to the US as they do to everywhere else. The reverse is not true of a first/middle/last structure. The main reason I am arguing for this is to accommodate Asian names, which obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with where I live. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Daddy DVD: Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:
Quote:
Again, this isn't a problem that is caused by the number of fields. This is a problem that is caused by bad data entry.
The simple fact that many non-US users do not understand when a name should be placed in the middle causes bad data entry. If the middle name field would be eliminated the chance a name could be parsed incorrectly drops from 50 to 25% (and to 0% with a single name field). So, because someone can't figure out that 'first name = first given name', 'last name = surname' and 'middle name = 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. given name' Ken has to change the program? Why can't that someone simply ask? That is what I do when I fill out a form with field names I don't recognize. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 13,202 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheFly: Quote:
Not at all, I want a universal solution that applies to all localities, not just the US. The concepts of given name and family apply just as much to the US as they do to everywhere else. The reverse is not true of a first/middle/last structure.
The main reason I am arguing for this is to accommodate Asian names, which obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with where I live. Adding the tickbox and telling people what each field means accomplishes the same thing. Does it not? | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar |
| | Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Posts: 103 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
So, because someone can't figure out that 'first name = first given name', 'last name = surname' and 'middle name = 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. given name' Ken has to change the program Since when is this the definition? Where is this stated? How can you sensibly apply this to Asian names, where additional given names would actually be at the end? |
| | Registered: March 18, 2007 | | Posts: 103 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Unicus69: Quote:
Adding the tickbox and telling people what each field means accomplishes the same thing. Does it not? Well if you're telling people that "First Name" = given name, "Last Name" = family name, then what's the reason not to rename them? And what benefit is gained from having subsequent given names placed in a "Middle Name" field rather than all together under "Given Name"? |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Desktop Feature Requests |
Page:
1... 3 4 5 6 7 ...17 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |