<<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

Adrian, No quarrel at all with what you say. The only problem bugging me was that this, being a Christian country, historically devised a terminology based around Christian practice. Owing to the upheavals of the Reformation etc., the terminology became less precise, and in popular parlance, especially among non-practising Christians, it became quite woolly. Christening is NOT a naming event - see my earlier etymological definition. A name is given by the parents, and during the Baptism ceremony, a Christian minister will ask "What name do you give / have you given this child?" because when he baptizes, he will address the child by name - the ceremony does not bestow a name. The use of 'Christening' would be quite inappropriate to a Moslem family, and might even offend them. We can't stem this particular tide, but I would advocate that Gedcom should develop other event titles to reflect other than Christian practice. Our society is becoming multi-cultural, and our traditional Christian attitudes are under increasing pressure from secularism. So it seems to me that concepts like Christening or Baptism may cease to be events in modern records and Gedcom will have to cope with this. I agree that custom events are a boon, but (dare I say it) standardization would help to compare like with like. Kind regards, John L -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce Sent: 12 January 2014 17:09 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

<<snipped>> I would advocate that Gedcom should develop other event titles to reflect other than Christian practice. <<snipped>> I agree. In the various attempts to develop a replacement for / enhancement of GEDCOM, several commentators have pointed out the fact that Family History can be / is worldwide, while GEDCOM is not just Christian, but Western in its default vocabulary. It isn't even very successful in being American, as it doesn't help software process Hispanic names! So there are many people who agree with you... Adrian B