For those of you who have expressed dissatisfaction with the current gedcom standard (Hi, Wes!), now some 14 years old, you might find the following link from Dick Eastman's "On Line Genealogy Newsletter" of interest: http://blog.eogn.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2010/11/build-a-bettergedcom.html Swell Ol' Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes -- Thomas Paine

On 11-10-2010 13:46, Bob Melson wrote: > For those of you who have expressed dissatisfaction with the current gedcom > standard (Hi, Wes!), now some 14 years old, you might find the following > link from Dick Eastman's "On Line Genealogy Newsletter" of interest: > > http://blog.eogn.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2010/11/build-a-bettergedcom.html It is of interest. But I'm not holding my breath. How many other such attempts have come and gone? I'm amused though, at one person's blaming GEDCOM for the loss of hard work. It's not GEDCOM's fault if (1) People respond to its inadequacies by refusing to comply with its syntax/semantics (2) Programmers claim to follow it when they really don't. -- Wes Groleau It seems a pity that psychology should have destroyed all our knowledge of human nature. — G. K. Chesterton

On 2010-11-10 18:46, Bob Melson wrote: > For those of you who have expressed dissatisfaction with the current gedcom > standard (Hi, Wes!), now some 14 years old, you might find the following > link from Dick Eastman's "On Line Genealogy Newsletter" of interest: > > http://blog.eogn.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2010/11/build-a-bettergedcom.html > > Swell Ol' Bob > We've been here before in various forms. Here are a few of the issues: - This sort of exercise seems to be beloved by techies rather than users. - Not everyone wants a universal standard that leaves out some of their favourite features. - Users just want something that works for them. - Using XML does not necessarily provide a useful solution. - A universal standard must be comprehensive, cross-cultural and allow user extensions for those things the original designers didn't allow for. This might sound like xml but it isn't. The key issue is understanding the meaning, not the technical attributes. - The gedcom history shows that implementers, either by mistake or knowingly, will make incorrect interpretations of the specification. - How will the new scheme interface with the many millions of gedcom files in existence (as well as the similarly large number of proprietary files)? - etc If they can deal with those issues they maybe able to make some progress. Peter

"Bob Melson" wrote in message news:0IOdnXZUA9wEdUfRnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@earthlink.com... For those of you who have expressed dissatisfaction with the current gedcom standard (Hi, Wes!), now some 14 years old, you might find the following link from Dick Eastman's "On Line Genealogy Newsletter" of interest: http://blog.eogn.com/eastmans_online_genealogy/2010/11/build-a-bettergedcom.html Swell Ol' Bob -- The idea is fundamentally flawed, primarily because of goal #3 "BG should require a software application to export all data to be in compliance." If genealogy software creators could master this concept in the current standard, BG might stand a hope of being successful. However, as only a couple have achieved this in 14 years the likelihood is extremely remote. Nigel