This looks to me like a matter for the Family History Information Standards Organisation (FHISO), whose mission is to devise, and to secure the acceptance and adoption of, a better GEDCOM, and whose Founder Members include Calico Pie. Simon - is FHISO making any progress? Rod Moulding -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Bruce Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FHU] Christenings vs baptism <<snipped>> Gedcom is supposed to be precise. <<snipped>> Personally, I would suggest that this is somewhat unfair given that real life is not precise and GEDCOM tries to describe it. There is a degree of flexibility intended in GEDCOM - and a degree of flexibility that has crept in by common practice, regardless of the standard. For instance, the GEDCOM definition of a PLACE is a "**jurisdictional** name to identify the place or location of an event" (my emphasis). Anyone restrict their placenames to jurisdictions? i.e. to placenames representing only local government entities, church townships / parishes, etc.? I think some Americans do restrict themselves thus, but UK genealogists? <<snipped>> What happens outside Christian practice may require a different terminology. <<snipped>> Absolutely so. But I would also suggest that *if* you regard the creation of a custom fact as impossibly forbidding (or as a hostage to fortune if you do transfer your data) then you might care to use CHR for a naming event in another religion, because that's what the definition says. Yes, I recognise that will be an utterly unacceptable usage for some, but my point is that IF you care to use it, there is a degree of intended and accidental flexibility in GEDCOM that is very useful, and increasing precision will result in either loss of ability to input stuff or need a massive increase in the number of items in use. And I can name some of you who are frowning at my advocacy of such flexibility by this point! Adrian B ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Recent pronouncement from Drew Smith on this subject: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.computing/A3Bksk8dpUA/wIrL8ZQdpLAJ Tony Proctor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rod Moulding" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 11:09 AM Subject: Re: [FHU] Christenings vs baptism > This looks to me like a matter for the Family History Information > Standards > Organisation (FHISO), whose mission is to devise, and to secure the > acceptance and adoption of, a better GEDCOM, and whose Founder Members > include Calico Pie. Simon - is FHISO making any progress? > > Rod Moulding > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Bruce > Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:09 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [FHU] Christenings vs baptism > > <<snipped>> > Gedcom is supposed to be precise. > <<snipped>> > > Personally, I would suggest that this is somewhat unfair given that real > life is not precise and GEDCOM tries to describe it. There is a degree of > flexibility intended in GEDCOM - and a degree of flexibility that has > crept > in by common practice, regardless of the standard. > > For instance, the GEDCOM definition of a PLACE is a "**jurisdictional** > name > to identify the place or location of an event" (my emphasis). Anyone > restrict their placenames to jurisdictions? i.e. to placenames > representing > only local government entities, church townships / parishes, etc.? I think > some Americans do restrict themselves thus, but UK genealogists? > > <<snipped>> > What happens outside Christian practice may require a different > terminology. > <<snipped>> > > Absolutely so. But I would also suggest that *if* you regard the creation > of > a custom fact as impossibly forbidding (or as a hostage to fortune if you > do > transfer your data) then you might care to use CHR for a naming event in > another religion, because that's what the definition says. Yes, I > recognise > that will be an utterly unacceptable usage for some, but my point is that > IF > you care to use it, there is a degree of intended and accidental > flexibility > in GEDCOM that is very useful, and increasing precision will result in > either loss of ability to input stuff or need a massive increase in the > number of items in use. > > And I can name some of you who are frowning at my advocacy of such > flexibility by this point! > > Adrian B > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message