On Wednesday 10 November 2010 12:39, Peter J. Seymour (Newsgroups@pjsey.demon.co.uk) opined: > 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 Peter, All I can say is that you should read the article if you haven't already. Most of the points you raise seem to be covered, although I have to say I'm not optimistic that anything will come of the effort. Thought folks might be interested. Short 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 2010-11-10 21:58, Bob Melson wrote: > On Wednesday 10 November 2010 12:39, Peter J. Seymour > (Newsgroups@pjsey.demon.co.uk) opined: > >> 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 > > Peter, > > All I can say is that you should read the article if you haven't already. > Most of the points you raise seem to be covered, although I have to say > I'm not optimistic that anything will come of the effort. Thought folks > might be interested. > > Short Ol' Bob > Bob, Well I did skim it but perhaps didn't read it enthusiatically enough. But you are correct - it is of interest and thanks for mentioning it. Peter