"singhals" <singhals@erols.com> wrote in message news:baCdnRzfnefM9uvanZ2dnUVZ_vfinZ2d@rcn.net... > JD <jd4x4@ wrote: > >> Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote: >> >> >>>Again, how is XML more flexible than GEDCOM? The flexibility, if any, >>>has to be built into the semantics--the DTD and what is allowed to >>>link to what. I may complain about areas where GEDCOM is a bit rigid, >>>but overall, it's MORE flexible than many software implementations. >>> >>> >>>Again, if you can't force them to comply with the GEDCOM 5.5 spec, you >>>can't force them to comply with the GEDCOM 6 DTD or any other DTD, >>>much less the semantic parts that a DTD cannot express. >>> >> >> Again, XML-compliant means that the software would accept the file as >> input. By doing that it SHOULD at least accept the information in the >> file > > Again, if you can't force GEDstand. compliance, you can't force XML > compliance. > > How is not-compliant with X better than non-compliant with Y? > > Cheryl Exactly. This thread has drifted into the realms of discussing how to build a replacement mechanism for a facility that is not used correctly in the first place. GEDCOM 5.5 is sufficiently rich to support 95% of data transfer needs. Currently, most programs appear to use 30%-80% of this richness appropriately. Changing the transport mechanism isn't going to change the content richness. Currently the more compliant programs are those that use GEDCOM as their base data model, and then extend for their own purposes. Family Tree Builder (My Heritage), phpGEDView, and Family Historian (Calico Pie) are examples of such programs. When and if GEDCOM 5.5 is ever used correctly and completely, and its shortcomings for certain situations are encountered, then is a reasonable time to discuss the need to extend or replace. Extension could easily be achieved by agreed additional standards using custom tags, or by extending the meaning of existing tags. For example some programs use "1 MARR N" to indicate "not married", even though "N" is not a valid value for MARR under the existing standard. While leaders such as Family Tree Maker believe (according to the help file) that there is no facility in GEDCOM to support image exports, it would seem that we remain a long way from the point where the genealogy program creators are likely to use the basic capabilities of the current GEDCOM standard to its full extent. Changing the transport mechanism won't make a jot of difference to this situation - it would still be transporting sub-optimal data. Nigel www.tcgr.bufton.org

JD <jd4x4@ wrote: > Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote: > > >>Again, how is XML more flexible than GEDCOM? The flexibility, if any, >>has to be built into the semantics--the DTD and what is allowed to >>link to what. I may complain about areas where GEDCOM is a bit rigid, >>but overall, it's MORE flexible than many software implementations. >> >> >>Again, if you can't force them to comply with the GEDCOM 5.5 spec, you >>can't force them to comply with the GEDCOM 6 DTD or any other DTD, >>much less the semantic parts that a DTD cannot express. >> > > Again, XML-compliant means that the software would accept the file as > input. By doing that it SHOULD at least accept the information in the file Again, if you can't force GEDstand. compliance, you can't force XML compliance. How is not-compliant with X better than non-compliant with Y? Cheryl

JD <jd4x4@ wrote: > Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote: >> Again, how is XML more flexible than GEDCOM? The flexibility, if any, >> has to be built into the semantics--the DTD and what is allowed to >> link to what. I may complain about areas where GEDCOM is a bit rigid, >> but overall, it's MORE flexible than many software implementations. > If each piece of software was now able to produce XML-compliant output of > the data that it currently outputs in "GEDCOM format", a look at it's > DTD/Schema would reveal where it varied from the "baseline" LDS spec. If they can't be forced to comply with a spec, they can't be forced write an accurate DTD. > How can you say that is "less flexible" than "GEDCOM"?? I don't. I say the general-purpose XML structure is not more flexible than the GEDCOM structure. Flexibility, if any, is in the semantics, the restrictions or lack thereof. That is, if the software actually correctly implements those semantics. Which leads to what I did say: that GEDCOM, for all its flaws, is more flexible than many programs that claim to implement it. -- Wes Groleau Is it an on-line compliment to call someone a Net Wit ?

Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote: > Again, how is XML more flexible than GEDCOM? The flexibility, if any, > has to be built into the semantics--the DTD and what is allowed to > link to what. I may complain about areas where GEDCOM is a bit rigid, > but overall, it's MORE flexible than many software implementations. > > > Again, if you can't force them to comply with the GEDCOM 5.5 spec, you > can't force them to comply with the GEDCOM 6 DTD or any other DTD, > much less the semantic parts that a DTD cannot express. > Again, XML-compliant means that the software would accept the file as input. By doing that it SHOULD at least accept the information in the file that describes the data type and the generator's format context, both in reference to the data format itself (dd-mm-yyyy-gregorian calendar, etc) as well as the generator's heirarchy. Both are part of the DTD. Nobody HAS to do anything, but for those that WANT to do the right thing then all of that would be "transparant", viewable in the DTD/Schema. If each piece of software was now able to produce XML-compliant output of the data that it currently outputs in "GEDCOM format", a look at it's DTD/Schema would reveal where it varied from the "baseline" LDS spec. How can you say that is "less flexible" than "GEDCOM"??

Head Geek wrote: > JD <jd4x4@ wrote: > >> "Nigel Bufton" <nigel@bufton.org> wrote: >> >>> I see nothing here that is not self-explanatory. What is it in the >>> OP's question that I am not understanding? > > > I saw nothing there that recommended what and how much to put in > <SOURCE_ORIGINATOR>, <SOURCE_DESCRIPTIVE_TITLE>, > <SOURCE_FILED_BY_ENTRY>, <SOURCE_PUBLICATION_FACTS>, > or <TEXT_FROM_SOURCE> for census or any other particular > source. > >> :-) Dunno. I thought maybe it had more to do with what sort of text >> was appropriate but I wasn't totally sure myself. That's why I thought >> the auto-generated Ancestry entry might be of help. > > > It was helpful in that it showed one more entity's answer to the > question. I poked around maybe a dozen online sites that let you > see their GEDCOM, and it seems a mere "1930 Census" is the most > popular answer. To me that's not enough. But neither do I feel > that I need to say enough for a new arrival from Betelgeuse IV > to find it blind-folded. important to have day and month of any census for comparison with vital records Hugh W -- For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/ http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG

JD <jd4x4@ wrote: > True, it's the same data. But the added value of a flexible organization > structure in the file, along with the transparency of the Again, how is XML more flexible than GEDCOM? The flexibility, if any, has to be built into the semantics--the DTD and what is allowed to link to what. I may complain about areas where GEDCOM is a bit rigid, but overall, it's MORE flexible than many software implementations. > Well, I don't agree exactly with that. The data model differences are > probably the biggest issue right now, but certainly assuring at least a > basic standard with regard to syntactic format would fix a lot of issues > as well. Cheryl's example of the calender used and even date syntax. Again, if you can't force them to comply with the GEDCOM 5.5 spec, you can't force them to comply with the GEDCOM 6 DTD or any other DTD, much less the semantic parts that a DTD cannot express. -- Wes Groleau Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise according to his own conceit. -- Solomon Are you saying there's no good way to answer a fool? -- Groleau

Head Geek <headgeek@Kubuntu.local> wrote: > > It's already been said that XML has some advantages in terms of > available general=-purpose tools. But I'll say it again--I see > no _functional_ difference between a file containing elements > with attributes that contain elements with attributes and a > file containing records with data that contain records with data. > True, it's the same data. But the added value of a flexible organization structure in the file, along with the transparency of the "rules"/guidelines for it's use are an improvement over a flat file, I think. I also think that "general purpose tools" only serve to show that XML can be flexible. In fact, without tools that specifically benefit genealogy/family history/whatever users the result is a diservice to XML by adding confusion without results and progression. (Wish I was a programmer!). > The goodness or badness of the data model is irrelevant to the > advantages or disadvantages of the syntax of GEDCOM vs. XML. > Also somewhat true, except that the use of XML would be what the software needs to understand and cope with rather than any one (or more) fixed set of file/format/software-specific rules. > But the goodness or badness of the data model is a more important > issue than the syntactic carrier. Well, I don't agree exactly with that. The data model differences are probably the biggest issue right now, but certainly assuring at least a basic standard with regard to syntactic format would fix a lot of issues as well. Cheryl's example of the calender used and even date syntax.. standard capitalization, etc. are all important, imo. Now, before anyone freaks out.. that doesn't mean that a user would be forced to use a particular calender or capitalization, only that the software would either remap between the data and the display/file output and/or simply include the particular rule that's used so the next s/w and user would know.

Head Geek <headgeek@Kubuntu.local> wrote: > JD <jd4x4@ wrote: >> "Nigel Bufton" <nigel@bufton.org> wrote: >>> I see nothing here that is not self-explanatory. What is it in the >>> OP's question that I am not understanding? > > I saw nothing there that recommended what and how much to put in > <SOURCE_ORIGINATOR>, <SOURCE_DESCRIPTIVE_TITLE>, > <SOURCE_FILED_BY_ENTRY>, <SOURCE_PUBLICATION_FACTS>, > or <TEXT_FROM_SOURCE> for census or any other particular > source. > >> :-) Dunno. I thought maybe it had more to do with what sort of text was >> appropriate but I wasn't totally sure myself. That's why I thought the >> auto-generated Ancestry entry might be of help. > > It was helpful in that it showed one more entity's answer to the > question. I poked around maybe a dozen online sites that let you > see their GEDCOM, and it seems a mere "1930 Census" is the most > popular answer. To me that's not enough. But neither do I feel > that I need to say enough for a new arrival from Betelgeuse IV > to find it blind-folded. Yeah, while looking at the Ancestry example I noticed that there was some duplication between the master and the detail cites that I wouldn't do if I were entering them. Good point about which country, though. For sure I'd want the main repository info in the master. Most of my s/w appends the detail lines to the master details, so that really leaves (microfilm)roll: and page:, state : (if applicable) & enumeration district, etc to put in each detail cite. I'm by no means an expert, btw.. just a novice. But I'd be grateful if I could go right to the page somehow.

JD <jd4x4@ wrote: > singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: > > >>Total agreement on the data-model will be achieved when If >>And ONLY IF (IFF) only one person has to be pleased by it. > > > There could never be total agreement on only one data model, and that's > exactly why XML could be a solution! > > >>I don't care to record the names of 200 wedding guests, >>others want that information. Some people want to include >>the GPS data on the precise place of burial; I figure the >>name of the cemetery and a place-name is all the precision I >>need 90% of the time (and the other 10%, I put in notes to >>myself). >> > > If the gps coords came from a trusted source and already "attached" > (entered) with the cemetery info, would you discard it or keep it anyway > (assuming you didn't have to look at it unless you wanted)? > Whichever way was easiest. > If you had the choice of not even storing it but discarding it > automatically once you told the software to do so, would that ruin your > day? > No. I _might_ turn out to be wrong, and I _might_ regret the original decision, but regardless of the Boy Scouts "Be Prepared" you cannot guard against every possible potentiality, because eventually you bog down (I mean! how often are you gonna _need_ a defrib and a back-board on a 10 mile hike? Once in 10 years?) Cheryl

> > It was helpful in that it showed one more entity's answer to the > question. I poked around maybe a dozen online sites that let you > see their GEDCOM, and it seems a mere "1930 Census" is the most > popular answer. To me that's not enough. But neither do I feel > that I need to say enough for a new arrival from Betelgeuse IV > to find it blind-folded. And how many countries had a census in 1930? Steven

"Mike Williams" <nospam@econym.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:Ar$r4fLJUqcHFwlw@econym.demon.co.uk... > Wasn't it Kathryn M Rogers who wrote: >>Hello Listers, >> >>While my normal mail is with Bigpond, I also have a Hotmail account for >>some >>genealogy. I have not received anything for a few days which is most >>unusual. Is anyone else having trouble with their hotmail? > > I don't do Hotmail, but over the last few days I've noticed that several > ISPs have been having more problems than usual. I guess their systems > might be being managed by a handful of guys who weren't smart enough to > arrange to get time off over Christmas. > I use Hotmail for mailing lists, and have only had a few messages over the last couple of days. Mind you, there's not been much in the newsgroups either. I guess that the clue is in the dates - most people have other things to do on Christmas and Boxing Days, even if it's just eating too much, or (as in my case) exploring the books and data CDs that Santa brought. Lesley Robertson

Head Geek wrote: > > The goodness or badness of the data model is irrelevant to the > advantages or disadvantages of the syntax of GEDCOM vs. XML. GEDCOM is both a syntax *and* a data model. > But the goodness or badness of the data model is a more important > issue than the syntactic carrier. Agreed. But it follows that if one wants to improve on the data model then the syntactic carrier should also be up for reconsideration. -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk

Ancestry Research found in Modern Education Tools New Year's Day updates <www.academic-genealogy.com/> Family Genealogy & History Internet Education Directory Examples: Top Search Engines and Directories http://www.academic-genealogy.com/topsearchenginesdirectories.htm brings out the best, under Instructions for General Internet Use. We have added, The Open University's OpenLearn website: Information on the Web (T180_5) Foundation skills to use search engines confidently to locate both information and images on the Web and learn how to critically assess and reference the information you have found for study purposes. Beginning on page 13, is #3.3 Focused search sites "An alternative to using general purpose search engines is to make use of focused search engines that only index known genealogical sites. . . ." http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=182768 Beginning on page 28, is an Appendix: Genealogical Resources http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=182798 Schools - Colleges - Universities: Alumni and Genealogy Education http://www.academic-genealogy.com/schoolscollegesuniversities.htm now has a worldwide comprehensive resource for current open online distance education, under Online Education and Resources. Besides having a "Massive List of Free Education Online For Autodidacts", which includes tons of educational resources, such as learning languages on iTunes, there is Open Education Resources (OER) Index. This site includes: "teaching and learning materials that are freely available online for everyone to use, whether you are an instructor, student, or self-learner. Examples of OER include: full courses, course modules, syllabi, lectures, homework assignments, quizzes, lab and classroom activities, pedagogical materials, games, simulations, and many more resources contained in digital media collections from around the world." http://cwr.unitar.edu.my/file.php/1/Index.htm REPOSITORIES of interest include Fathom Archive, provided by Columbia University, which has: Jewish Studies, . . . " Hebrew manuscripts reflect regional variations in materials, culture and religious sensibility, and they consider how scribal practices and literary tastes evolved over the centuries . . ." http://www.fathom.com/special/jewish_studies/index.html . . . University of California eScholarship Repository has: Objectivity in History, . . . The purpose of this paper is to define a concept of objectivity based on criteria of comparison, . . . http://repositories.cdlib.org/postprints/1099/ . . . Wikipedia, with its related WikiEducator, developing free and open educational content for the world. . . . " a partnership that will make it possible to obtain high quality print and word processor copies of articles from Wikipedia and other wiki educational resources. . . ." http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/wndReader.asp?ArticleId=40445 Additionally, on another side (just the tip of the ice burg), is: Computer - Internet - Software: Genealogy Programs http://www.academic-genealogy.com/computerinternetsoftware.htm Support for Photography & Digital Preservation has: Picturing the family http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=2688&topic=all " These photographs provide another type of record that can offer insights into our family history. But what can they tell us? How can we elicit the information they hold? And how do we analyse or evaluate that information? The purpose of this unit is to suggest how to approach the interpretation of the photographic record. . . ." Respectfully yours, Tom Tinney, Sr. Who's Who in America, Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004 Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions] Family Genealogy & History Internet Education Directory http://www.academic-genealogy.com/

Greg's kids, Zack and Maura worked at Wegman's for a while. I think Zack is still there. He started when he was 15. Maura might be working at the candy shop where her sister Katie used to work.

JD <jd4x4@ wrote: > "Nigel Bufton" <nigel@bufton.org> wrote: >> I see nothing here that is not self-explanatory. What is it in the >> OP's question that I am not understanding? I saw nothing there that recommended what and how much to put in <SOURCE_ORIGINATOR>, <SOURCE_DESCRIPTIVE_TITLE>, <SOURCE_FILED_BY_ENTRY>, <SOURCE_PUBLICATION_FACTS>, or <TEXT_FROM_SOURCE> for census or any other particular source. > :-) Dunno. I thought maybe it had more to do with what sort of text was > appropriate but I wasn't totally sure myself. That's why I thought the > auto-generated Ancestry entry might be of help. It was helpful in that it showed one more entity's answer to the question. I poked around maybe a dozen online sites that let you see their GEDCOM, and it seems a mere "1930 Census" is the most popular answer. To me that's not enough. But neither do I feel that I need to say enough for a new arrival from Betelgeuse IV to find it blind-folded.

JD <jd4x4@ wrote: > singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: >> Total agreement on the data-model will be achieved when If >> And ONLY IF (IFF) only one person has to be pleased by it. > > There could never be total agreement on only one data model, and that's > exactly why XML could be a solution! >> are necessary ... there's gonna be a need for a data-model >> so flexible it may as well not exist (see also: Gedcom >> standard). > > The flexible data model already exists and has for some time. What > doesn't (quite yet, but getting there) exist is the software to > manipulate it for the variety of user requirements & preferences. And, > enough users to realize that and demand it. It's already been said that XML has some advantages in terms of available general=-purpose tools. But I'll say it again--I see no _functional_ difference between a file containing elements with attributes that contain elements with attributes and a file containing records with data that contain records with data. The goodness or badness of the data model is irrelevant to the advantages or disadvantages of the syntax of GEDCOM vs. XML. But the goodness or badness of the data model is a more important issue than the syntactic carrier.

JD <jd4x4@<del.this>verizon.net> wrote: > There could never be total agreement on only one data model, and that's > exactly why XML could be a solution! > <snip> > > The flexible data model already exists and has for some time. What > doesn't (quite yet, but getting there) exist is the software to > manipulate it for the variety of user requirements & preferences. And, > enough users to realize that and demand it. > OK.. I apologize. I slipped into one perpetuating one of the reasons the XML issue is confusing. By flexible data model I meant the data itself, ie. people, places, events, dates. By data MODEL I meant what Cheryl was referring to, which is what combinations of data elements were ordered with what, and how much/little detail is attached to them, and who uses what, etc. Two very distinct items that often get mixed together in discussions, but both of which XML can help address individually as well as together.

singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: > > Total agreement on the data-model will be achieved when If > And ONLY IF (IFF) only one person has to be pleased by it. There could never be total agreement on only one data model, and that's exactly why XML could be a solution! > I don't care to record the names of 200 wedding guests, > others want that information. Some people want to include > the GPS data on the precise place of burial; I figure the > name of the cemetery and a place-name is all the precision I > need 90% of the time (and the other 10%, I put in notes to > myself). > If the gps coords came from a trusted source and already "attached" (entered) with the cemetery info, would you discard it or keep it anyway (assuming you didn't have to look at it unless you wanted)? If you had the choice of not even storing it but discarding it automatically once you told the software to do so, would that ruin your day? > But so long as there is "room" in the market for conflicting > views on whether the GPS data is necessary or whether the > names of all witnesses (as opposed to only the official > witnesses as opposed to only the names of the participants) > are necessary ... there's gonna be a need for a data-model > so flexible it may as well not exist (see also: Gedcom > standard). > The flexible data model already exists and has for some time. What doesn't (quite yet, but getting there) exist is the software to manipulate it for the variety of user requirements & preferences. And, enough users to realize that and demand it. > IME, YMMV, and so on. > > Cheryl

Wasn't it Kathryn M Rogers who wrote: >Hello Listers, > >While my normal mail is with Bigpond, I also have a Hotmail account for some >genealogy. I have not received anything for a few days which is most >unusual. Is anyone else having trouble with their hotmail? I don't do Hotmail, but over the last few days I've noticed that several ISPs have been having more problems than usual. I guess their systems might be being managed by a handful of guys who weren't smart enough to arrange to get time off over Christmas. -- Mike Williams Gentleman of Leisure

JD <jd4x4@ wrote: > Hugh Watkins <hugh.watkins@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>http://hughw36.blogspot.com/2007/12/happy-christmas-2007.html >> >>my Christmas card is our own tree decorated by my daughter in Copenhagen >>Denmark >> >>Hugh W >> > > Nice tree, Hugh. > Solihull, eh? I used to visit there a lot in my previous adventures with a > used-to-be-all-British-now-American-owned-soon-to-be-Indian-owned world's > best 4-wheel drive vehicle manufacturer! > > Very pretty town. > > And, you scare me with how much alike we look, except I keep my beard > shorter. :-O > my full beard gets me many compiments "how do I do it?" not cut it more than once a year if that Hugh W -- For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/ http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG