New element type and roles for contracts

[Helmut Leininger 0]

Hi,

 

I would like to create a new element type "Contract" to hold information like:

 

John, Bob and Max entered the contract "contract-description". Witnesses have been Mary, James and Dick.

 

Probably, the element should be derived from "History" as this does not need a principal person. A Role ("Partner") would be needed for John, Bob and Max. Mary, James and Dick could be the "Witnesses".

 

I would like hints on how to construct this, especially the sentences to bring in the all the individuals to get an output as indicated above.

 

 

Many thanks in advance

Helmut

[Vera Nagel 0]

I would like to create a new element type "Contract" to hold information like:

 

Hello Helmut,

 

you most probably mean a new custom tag type "Contract", right?

[Michael Hannah 0]

Hi Helmut,

 

As Vera said, assuming you mean to create a custom tag type called "Contract" and then use that new tag type to create multiple such tags for people, you might review Terry's tips about custom tags here.

 

Following your example, you could create such a custom tag type in the History group and define a custom role of "Partner" in addition to the default role that will already be defined of Witness. A possible default sentence could be:

[R:Partner] entered the contract [M]. <Witnesses have been [R:Witness].>

Then just link the people to this tag with their appropriate roles, and enter the contract description in the memo. I would probably leave the quotes out of the default sentence and instead include them as part of the text in the memo whenever that was appropriate. I also made the Witness sentence conditional by use of the '' characters so that the tag sentence would output correctly even if you only link Partners and have no Witnesses.

 

The sentence role variable "[R:Partner]" will expand to all people assigned that role, which I think is what you want. For more details, see Terry's Tips about roles here.

 

Hope this gives you the basic idea, you can expand on this idea as needed.

[Vera Nagel 0]

Hi,

 

I would like to create a new element type "Contract" to hold information like:

 

John, Bob and Max entered the contract "contract-description". Witnesses have been Mary, James and Dick.

 

Probably, the element should be derived from "History" as this does not need a principal person. A Role ("Partner") would be needed for John, Bob and Max. Mary, James and Dick could be the "Witnesses".

 

I would like hints on how to construct this, especially the sentences to bring in the all the individuals to get an output as indicated above.

 

 

Many thanks in advance

Helmut

 

Hallo Helmut,

 

bist Du Dir wirklich sicher, daß Du einen derart globalen und meiner Meinung nach eher eingeschränkten Weg gehen möchtest, um Verträge aller möglichen Art (Eheverträge, Erbverträge, Testamente, Landkäufe, Schenkungsverträge etc. etc.) in TMG abzubilden? Ich würde auch nicht sagen, daß Verträge keine Hauptpersonen haben bzw. brauchen - siehe z.B. das TMG Element "Testament" oder "Heirat/Ehevertrag".

 

Stell Dir vor, Du findest für eine Person gleich mehrere "Verträge", dann würdest Du bei den Personen-Details zunächst nur ...Vertrag, Vertrag, Vertrag... sehen und erst dann, wenn Du Dir das Vertrags-Element selber anschaust, würdest Du sehen, um welchen Vertragstyp es sich wirklich handelt. Oder?

 

Über das Datum eines Vertrages selber kann man ihn auch nicht immer gleich auf einen Blick mit einem anderen Element wie z.B. Heirat in Verbindung bringen, nämlich immer dann nicht, wenn z.B. ein Ehevertrag erst Jahre später nach der Eheschließung abgeschlossen würde. Hier würde dann nur helfen z.B. mit Sortierdaten zu arbeiten.

 

[ghist of my reply in English: wouldn't that be a way too global and some how limited approach to report all sorts of various contracts one may think of in TMG? I wouldn't do it that way and I'd also not agree that contracts don't have/need principals.

i.e. see TMG's tag types "will" or "marr cont (marriage contract)"]

[Helmut Leininger 0]

Hi Helmut,

 

As Vera said, assuming you mean to create a custom tag type called "Contract" and then use that new tag type to create multiple such tags for people, you might review Terry's tips about custom tags here.

 

Following your example, you could create such a custom tag type in the History group and define a custom role of "Partner" in addition to the default role that will already be defined of Witness. A possible default sentence could be:

[R:Partner] entered the contract [M]. <Witnesses have been [R:Witness].>

Then just link the people to this tag with their appropriate roles, and enter the contract description in the memo. I would probably leave the quotes out of the default sentence and instead include them as part of the text in the memo whenever that was appropriate. I also made the Witness sentence conditional by use of the '<' and '>' characters so that the tag sentence would output correctly even if you only link Partners and have no Witnesses.

 

The sentence role variable "[R:Partner]" will expand to all people assigned that role, which I think is what you want. For more details, see Terry's Tips about roles here.

 

Hope this gives you the basic idea, you can expand on this idea as needed.

Thanks, Michael

[Helmut Leininger 0]

bist Du Dir wirklich sicher, daß Du einen derart globalen und meiner Meinung nach eher eingeschränkten Weg gehen möchtest, um Verträge aller möglichen Art (Eheverträge, Erbverträge, Testamente, Landkäufe, Schenkungsverträge etc. etc.) in TMG abzubilden? Ich würde auch nicht sagen, daß Verträge keine Hauptpersonen haben bzw. brauchen - siehe z.B. das TMG Element "Testament" oder "Heirat/Ehevertrag".

Hallo Vera,

 

Ich würde sicher nicht alle Verträge so abspeichern, insbesondere nicht die, welche du anführst. Das ist mir schon klar.

Ich habe aber einige Verträge, die nicht so einfach aussehen.

 

A hat Schulden bei B. B hat Schulden bei C. C hat A Geld zur Deckung der Schulden bei B geborgt, somit hat A auch Schulden bei C. Alle drei sind miteinander verwandt, die Schulden jeweils teilweise abbezahlt, und über den Rest werden verschiedene Abmachungen getroffen. Zeugen bei der Abmachung waren D und E. Hier gibt es keine eindeutige Hauptperson und es sind mehr als zwei.

 

For the English speaking:

I would not use this tag for *every* contract, especially not for marriage contracts, last wills, ...

But there are more complicated cases where there is no principal person and the contractors are more than two.

 

 

Grüße

Helmut

[Michael Hannah 0]

Vera said: "... wouldn't that be a way too global and some how limited approach"

and Helmut replied: "I would not use this tag for *every* contract..."

 

I agree with Helmut. To me the value of creating a number of custom tag types is being able to pick among that variety of tag types the one that works best for this specific type of event for this set of people.

[Vera Nagel 0]

I agree with Helmut. To me the value of creating a number of custom tag types is being able to pick among that variety of tag types the one that works best for this specific type of event for this set of people.

 

I am sorry Michael, but that was not my point since I didn't say don't create a custom tag type which probably works best for a specific type of event which you are thinking of. I am not at all neglecting this great capability of TMG - the opposite is true: I love it.

 

My point instead was: are you really sure that you want to create a tag with such kind of a global name like "contract"?

IMHO such an approach might be able to neglect another great feature of TMG: it's ability to almost record each and everything immediately as precise as prossible of which I am an absolute fan.

Imagine a situation where you have a person with more than one "contract" tag. Looking at the person details you would only see: ...contract, contract, contract.... and you would have the additional need to check the tag details to see "what kind of contract" it actually is. A situation I personally strongly try to avoid.

 

Helmut additionally said: in my situation there is no principal person and the contractors are more than two. That being said he stated in his original post that it probably would be best to use a custom tag type derived from a History tag.

 

Here as well I am of different opinion - imagine i.e. a "will" with one or more testators and more than one heir. Wouldn't one still use a "will" tag?

Or i.e. think of "census" where also a whole group of people is involved.

In each little example outlined above those tags are not derived from a History tag.

 

******************

Thank you, Helmut for providing more details about "your special task" you want to accomplish by using such a "special custom tag type".

So what you want to record is a "financial contract" or may be better say a "financial relationship" among various blood-related people.

This helped me a great deal to better understand the specifics.