Dennis said: >Is there more documentation available on this effort? Perhaps a mission >statement? Goals? Objectives? A history/summary of what went on? Do you mean other than the first 10 pages of the document? Bob Velke Wholly Genes, Inc. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.32/1131 - Release Date: 11/14/2007 4:54 PM

Tony said: >I know that Bob, which is why I said "dumbed-down". :-) > >I was just trying to make a case for getting a new file format on as many >desktops as possible. It would be some time before anything really took >advantage of its full potential, but it's "numbers" that count I think that the last 10+ years proves what drives the genealogy software market - and it isn't a overriding interest to transfer data between researchers while maintaining data integrity. So if a reader application was capable of displaying those "dumbed-down GEDCOM files" in the context of a more comprehensive data model, then wouldn't that just discourage software developer's from producing anything else? Going out of your way to accommodate weakness doesn't hasten its demise. >then it wouldn't be long before that new format was all-pervasive, and not >long after that before other products would support it natively. I don't think so but go for it! I'd even pay for a copy. Bob Velke Wholly Genes, Inc. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.32/1131 - Release Date: 11/14/2007 4:54 PM

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:01:22 -0500, Bob Velke <bvelke@whollygenes.com> wrote: >The "Genealogical Data Model" (GDM) was started by GENTECH, now a >division of the National Genealogical Society, in _1996_ >(http://www.ngsgenealogy.org/ngsgentech/projects/Gdm/Gdm.cfm). The >project was sponsored by the National Genealogical Society (NGS), >Federation of Genealogical Societies (FGS), New England Historic >Genealogical Societies (NEHGS), American Society of Genealogists >(ASG), Association of Professional Genealogists (APG), and the Board >for Certification of Genealogists (BCG). I submit that you'll find >nothing closer to an authoritative body within the genealogical community. Is there more documentation available on this effort? Perhaps a mission statement? Goals? Objectives? A history/summary of what went on? -- Dennis

Well said David. I'm not sure how much involvement the software vendors had in those early standards like Fortran. However, with languages like C++ I think most of the big vendors are represented on the standards body. These same companies have "language lawyers" though that interpret those standards, and often hide behind 'the letter' rather than embracing 'the word' The older ANSI C and ANSI SQL specs are abomininations resulting from a design-by-committee approach. You can understand the approach taken with Java whereby it was designed and evolved as a proprietary standard before being considered for an international standard. I think the industry has benefited in the long term, albeit via an evolutionary approach. Programming Languages are better defined now, and more functional, and with less variation between vendor or hardware. I think genealogy could learn a lot from the programming language history. Its biggest problem, though, seems to be its fragmentation - there aren't the same big companies or authoritative bodies around to help kick-start a new standard. Tony Proctor "David Harper" <devnull@obliquity.u-net.com> wrote in message news:aBI_i.40441$T8.22632@newsfe5-win.ntli.net... > Denis Beauregard wrote: > > Hi: > > > > I think what is wrong with GEDCOM as a standard is not the GEDCOM > > itself. Its structure is quite easy to understand and it is easy > > to write a software that will both understand it and generate it. > > > > I would say the problem, as Bob said, is when the standard is > > applied. Any software maker has his/her opinion about that, but > > also, and this is more important, very few softwares can indeed > > support all the features in GEDCOM and many may have more features. > [SNIP] > > This kind of things has always plagued the software industry, alas. > > ANSI or ISO or W3C publishes a standard for some document format or > language specification, and before you know it, there are half a dozen > implementations from different vendors who all add "enhancements" that > are incompatible with the standard and with one another. > > Look at the way Fortran developed after the 1966 and 1977 ANSI > standards, for example. Big companies such as Digital Equipment > Corporation released compilers which allowed all manner of non-standard > extensions, which made portability a huge headache. > > More recently, Microsoft has gained a dubious reputation for its > "embrace and extend" tactic. Ask any web designer about the "standard" > for JavaScript in web browsers, and watch them roll their eyes and groan. > > I work in bioinformatics, using and writing software to analyse, store > and interchange biological information about DNA. There are half a > dozen different "standard" ways to store some kinds of data, and a lot > of software is pretty lax about obeying the standard when writing data > files. > > Like Andrew Tanenbaum said, the great thing about standards is that > there are so many to choose from :-) > > David Harper > Cambridge, England

I agree about the data model coming first Ian. However, it seems there's no absolute consensus on what such the data model should encompass. Every time the GEDCOM issue comes up, it seems some very experienced people make excellent critiques of the GEDCOM model, and enumerate all sorts of events, relationships, data-types, etc., that should be included in any new model or format. If this were a new computer language that was to be defined then some authoritative body (possibly a recognised standards body) would put out an RFI (Request for Information) to the public before creating a specification or data model. Although there are several genealogical bodies around, I'm not aware of any that have taken this initiative, or feel any need to. If they did then would the people/companies with software interests respect their authority anyway? I would argue (and have done elsewhere in this thread) that defining a better data model would eventually catch up with the popular software products - and make them better products. There is no such product that currently does everything. Most are great for home use, but less so for the serious genealogical researcher. Once such a data model had been ratified then the door would be open to producing an upgraded GEDCOM (or possibly an entirely new, more modern interchange format), and an open spec for an OOP object model designed around the data model, and eventually new enhanced versions of the popular products. In effect, I guess I'm saying that software designers can't be expect to know all the ins-and-outs of serious genealogical research, and vice versa. This would have to be a collaboration Tony Proctor "Ian Goddard" <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:Rdydndl4NcSiq6banZ2dnUVZ8qaqnZ2d@pipex.net... > Rich256 wrote: > > On Nov 14, 3:35 am, Ian Goddard <godda...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >> Steve Hayes wrote: > >>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:39:27 +0000, Ian Goddard <godda...@hotmail.co.uk> > >>> wrote: > >>>> The underlying data model of GEDCOM is very simple. IMV far too simple. > >>> Or far too complex. > >>> GEDCOM tries to group people into families, which is an unnecessary > >>> complication. > >>> The basic relations are father-child and mother-child, and if GEDCOM stuck to > >>> that it could simplify things. > >> Same difference! The *evidence* provides names of people (often > >> inconsistently spelled even on the same document. A data model should > >> provide an entity to represent data (names and roles) extracted from the > >> evidence; this is *analysis*. A simple data model which stops there > >> would be what you seek and I could go along with that. > >> > >> If we then try to group into families we build hypotheses which identify > >> one analysis record with another. This is *interpretation*. A data > >> model which makes provision for interpretation should provide a separate > >> entity for this - and make the link between the analysis and > >> interpretation representations of individuals a further entity. This is > >> the sort of model I would prefer. > >> > >> GEDCOM does neither. It provides a single entity to represent > >> analytical and interpretive views of individuals. It tries to achieve > >> complex ends by simple means. > >> > >> -- > >> Ian > >> > >> Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard > >> at nildram co uk > > > > > > If anyone can come up with a better standard please feel free to do > > so. However to accomodate the peculiarities of every program is a > > difficult if not impossible task. First of all perhaps all programs > > would have to adhere to a standard defining what data is acceptable. > > > As I've said before, the first thing is to get the data model right. > > Data model comes first, programs and interchange standards come later. > If you have a good data model and a program that follows it then you can > produce a good interchange standard. > > If you wanted to import into a program which only supported GEDCOM you > would be able to do that. You would be able to convert down to GEDCOM > level if need be but this would involve throwing data away. Does the > concept of throwing data away alarm you? It should. > > -- > Ian > > Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard > at nildram co uk

Doug said: >You, uh, clipped the part of my post where I made that point: >there is one data model for the "birth" relationships ... and there >simply is no "model" for anything else. That's the point. I understood your point, thanks. And no, I don't agree with you. If you know what a logical data model is, then please look at the GDM and then tell me that it can't be done. Thanks. Bob Velke Wholly Genes, Inc. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.32/1131 - Release Date: 11/14/2007 4:54 PM

Tony said: >I can't imagine why there was no participation from the software vendors Can't you <g>? >I know there are such viewers available now but what if there >was a free one that used the GDM model, and supported all the >bells-and-whistles associated with its enhanced specification. It may sound >a brain-dead idea but if there were non-distributable tools to convert all >those dumbed-down GEDCOM files to the format accepted by this new viewer... As I said, by the time the data has been converted to GEDCOM, the damage has been done. The data that has been lost/corrupted can't be recovered/repaired by merely looking at the GEDCOM file. It isn't there. Bob Velke Wholly Genes, Inc. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.32/1131 - Release Date: 11/14/2007 4:54 PM

Doug McDonald said: >Every person had exactly one mother and one father. Period. Well, that settles it, then. I'm guessing that you haven't written a genealogy program that anyone wants to buy. I think I said that GEDCOM is just fine for people whose vision of genealogical data is limited to that which is supported by PAF. The rest of us want to record and transmit genealogical _evidence_ which doesn't play by such neat and tidy rules. Bob Velke Wholly Genes, Inc. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.32/1131 - Release Date: 11/14/2007 4:54 PM

Bob Velke <bvelke@whollygenes.com> writes: > Tony Proctor said: > > >Although there are several genealogical bodies around, I'm not aware of any > >that have taken this initiative [to design a data model], or feel > >any need to. > > The "Genealogical Data Model" (GDM) was started by GENTECH, now a > division of the National Genealogical Society, in _1996_ > (http://www.ngsgenealogy.org/ngsgentech/projects/Gdm/Gdm.cfm). The > project was sponsored by the National Genealogical Society (NGS), > Federation of Genealogical Societies (FGS), New England Historic > Genealogical Societies (NEHGS), American Society of Genealogists > (ASG), Association of Professional Genealogists (APG), and the Board > for Certification of Genealogists (BCG). I submit that you'll find > nothing closer to an authoritative body within the genealogical community. > > >If they did then would the people/companies with software interests > >respect their authority anyway? > > The design committee included professional genealogists, software > developers, and data modelers. I was a member of that committee as > was a representative of the LDS Church. > > Several of other developers of the most popular genealogy software > programs were invited to participate. None accepted. There are anti-trust ramifications to participating in standarization activities unless the activities are done under the auspices o a recognized standards organization and follow proper procedures. Just try to get IBM to participate in an ad hoc meeting. > They were invited to attend planning meetings. None accepted. Who was underwriting the costs of attending these meetings? It gets expensive and time-consumng attending a lot of meetings at various sites. > Upon release of the first draft of the GDM in 1998, their peer review > was solicited. To my knowledge, none was provided by them. > > Upon release of v1.1 in 2000, their peer review was solicited again > -- and again, none was provided. What was done to publicize these releases and solicit comments? > The "GDM" remains by far the most comprehensive and authoritative > effort that has every been made to model genealogical data -- and I'd > wager that few of the major genealogy software vendors have ever > _looked_ at it. As I said before, I believe that the reason is that > they perceive it to be against their interest to do so. Ten years of > so-called "market forces" seems to have validated their strategy to > ignore the problem. > > Bob Velke > Wholly Genes, Inc.

Bob Velke wrote: > Charlie said: > >> Maybe if you packaged Genbridge as a separate product, and made it >> capable of writing out data files.... Then we wouldn't even need >> GEDCOM any more. > > It is available to developers as a standalone module (FTM 2008 uses it, > among others) but it cannot _write_ proprietary data files because that > would be a copyright violation. ?? Any intellectual property issue that arose from writing a file in a proprietary format would also arise from reading it, I would think. And generally the issue is patents, not copyrights. I can't think of any copyrightable aspect of a file format, other than the vendor's documents concerning it. I can think of other reasons not to write, including (1) being bound by the terms of a non-disclosure agreement, or the fact that (2) writing is much harder to do correctly than reading. I've also declined to make source code available for file formats I've reverse-engineered. - Ernie http://home.comcast.net/~erniew

Bob Velke wrote: > Doug McDonald said: > >> Every person had exactly one mother and one father. Period. > The > rest of us want to record and transmit genealogical _evidence_ which > doesn't play by such neat and tidy rules. > > You, uh, clipped the part of my post where I made that point: there is one data model for the "birth" relationships ... and there simply is no "model" for anything else. That's the point. You say exactly the same thing I do: there is only ONE data model, beyond that, there is lots of data, but it can;t be forced into a "model". Doug McDonald

Bob Velke wrote: > Tom said: > >> GEDCOM is a perfectly good standard. It may be old, but the kilogram >> is an old standard and enjoys widespread modern use. > > > For a lot of researchers, GEDCOM is far from "perfectly" anything. > ... > Bob Velke > Wholly Genes, Inc. > One of the reasons for the long development time of Gendatam Suite (see http://www.gendatam.com/ ) has been what to do for the best about Gedcom. The solution now in place is to provide a 'universal' gedcom reader (it works fairly well although is not 100% effective) and for gedcom output to provide 5.5 conformity. That is backed up by the more comprehensive Gendatam data structure. It does mean that on a strictly gedcom operation you may lose some of the data on output that was in the input file (or maybe it goes into notes where it is not so easily accessible), but that is not always a problem - it depends on what you are trying to do. The problem is with vendor extensions, but one should expect the 'core' data to be always handled correctly. One development test with Gendatam Suite has been the 'multiple round-trip'. This works as follows: import your gedcom file them write it out as a new gedcom file. This output file will differ textually from the original for all sorts of reasons, not just data loss. Re-import this file and output again as a new file. Does this second new file differ from the first new file? Repeat the cycle a few more times and see if any differences arise. The point of all that is to see how stable the data handling is beyond the initial cycle. If you want to keep all the data you have successfully imported, you need to save it as a gendatam file, not gedcom. A feature of Gendatam Suite, intended to ease difficulties, is the principle of providing data access. This means that the native gendatam file format is published. Also that data is accessible on screen and may be output in a variety of ways including as a plain-text report file. The intention is to allow people who have a reasonable degree of computer literacy to access data in a way convenient and useful to them. In summary, I don't think there is a solution to the Gedcom standards issue unless the user has a reasonable degree of computer literacy and is prepared to use it. In practice this often seems to involve using multiple programs as a toolkit to provide the required functionality, but that is just real-world computing. Regards Peter

Bob Velke wrote: > Tony Proctor said: > >> Although there are several genealogical bodies around, I'm not aware >> of any >> that have taken this initiative [to design a data model], or feel any >> need to. > > The "Genealogical Data Model" (GDM) was started by GENTECH, The data model of genealogy, t least up to about 10 years ago, weas very simple. Every person had exactly one mother and one father. Period. (Today a baby can have two mothers, five years from now, a total of 47 parents, 46 chromosomes and the mitochondria, but we won't worry about that.) That's a very simple data model. You have people, and you have that relationship. That's what genealogy is. Then you can accrete tons of data on top of it. Once you accrete, there is one clear fact: there simply is no "data model". There is no way to pre-guess every possible data connection between the main items, which remain the individual and their parents. You can accrete "relations" between genealogically unrelated people. No one can ever make a "standard" to encompass all this. Doug McDonald

Hugh Watkins <hugh.watkins@gmail.com> wrote in news:5oicr2Fml4mfU2@mid.individual.net: > Gerry wrote: > >> In article <4723c3a5$0$26537$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, >> Paul Blair <pblair@pcug.org.au> wrote: >> >> >>>Wonder what this will mean.... >>> >>>http://tgn.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=111 >>> >>>Paul >> >> >> Not much. Ancestry wasn't sold, the only change is that a minor >> partner has now become the major partner. > > the only interesting point will be if the new major partner is more, > or > very, closely connected with LDS because of the recent rift with > the > Family History Library really ought to be repaired > > Hugh W > The Mormons are stubborn so I doubt that they will make friends with Ancestry.com. Ancestry is too greedy for peoples money and Mormons don't want to give up their money so that everyone can access the information at the Family History Centers. From what I was told from a Mormon friend of my that volunteers at a Family History Center they Mormon Church dropped Ancestry because Ancestry wants too much money for their subscriptions per computer not per Family History Center. Mormons are too cheap to pay the expensive prices that Ancestry wants and Ancestry is too greedy to lower their prices.

Christian Dude <jerrsingle1962@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:Xns99B4174F1AC61jerrsingle1962sbcglo@207.115.33.102: > gracielastern@gmail.com wrote in news:1186542676.068707.253930 > @x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > >> Greetings, >> I am new to the world of genealogy. >> I would appreciate if someone could recommend what is a good software >> to input info of my family tree that provdies good, clear charts. >> Nothing very fancy. Basically I am looking to graph charts with the >> "fork" format. The ones that I have been used to the explain Royal >> families, which I find are the clearest ones. For some reason, the >> ones I seem to have come across do not provide this feature. Pardon >> my ignorance. >> >> Any information and clarification is welcome >> >> Thank you very much, >> > > I recommend Legacy Family Tree it's better than PAF. > It has an excellent merging ability that PAF still doesn't have. > The new version 7 of the Legacy Family Tree is supposed to have better > charts. Legacy has some charts you might like. > PAF if someone sends you a gedcom and you want to merge it with your > family file you have to do it one person at a time. Legacy will search > for all duplicates and will automatically merge most of the duplicates > sometimes there are minor spelling or date differences that you have > to manually merge. But it goes a lot faster with Legacy because of the > Auto Merge ability. > PAF still doesn't have that ability. I doubt that the Mormons will > ever add it to their precious PAF program. > I recommend Legacy Family Tree. Especially when it comes to merging files into your file. For example if you download a Gedcom from Rootsweb.com or familysearch.org and want to add it to your file. Merging with Legacy Family Tree is so much easier and quicker than PAF. One of these days the Mormons are going to create a version of PAF that has a great merge like Legacy Family Tree. But odds are they are not going too.

Tony Proctor said: >Although there are several genealogical bodies around, I'm not aware of any >that have taken this initiative [to design a data model], or feel >any need to. The "Genealogical Data Model" (GDM) was started by GENTECH, now a division of the National Genealogical Society, in _1996_ (http://www.ngsgenealogy.org/ngsgentech/projects/Gdm/Gdm.cfm). The project was sponsored by the National Genealogical Society (NGS), Federation of Genealogical Societies (FGS), New England Historic Genealogical Societies (NEHGS), American Society of Genealogists (ASG), Association of Professional Genealogists (APG), and the Board for Certification of Genealogists (BCG). I submit that you'll find nothing closer to an authoritative body within the genealogical community. >If they did then would the people/companies with software interests >respect their authority anyway? The design committee included professional genealogists, software developers, and data modelers. I was a member of that committee as was a representative of the LDS Church. Several of other developers of the most popular genealogy software programs were invited to participate. None accepted. They were invited to attend planning meetings. None accepted. Upon release of the first draft of the GDM in 1998, their peer review was solicited. To my knowledge, none was provided by them. Upon release of v1.1 in 2000, their peer review was solicited again -- and again, none was provided. The "GDM" remains by far the most comprehensive and authoritative effort that has every been made to model genealogical data -- and I'd wager that few of the major genealogy software vendors have ever _looked_ at it. As I said before, I believe that the reason is that they perceive it to be against their interest to do so. Ten years of so-called "market forces" seems to have validated their strategy to ignore the problem. Bob Velke Wholly Genes, Inc. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.32/1131 - Release Date: 11/14/2007 4:54 PM

When you bought your Fuji digital camera, you knew you were buying a product with a name you could trust. However, even the most sophisticated cameras have problems every now and then. So, what do you do when you encounter Fuji digital camera problems? There are several ways to figure out what to do whenever you experience Fuji digital camera problems. Well outline the steps you should follow if you have any Fuji digital camera problems so that you can get back to doing what you love: taking pictures with your Fuji digital camera. <a href=http://www.smartnfun.biz>Digital Camera</a>

Bob Velke wrote: > others will manipulate it to fit GEDCOM's very-limited data model. But GEDCOM does have significant limitations that I wish it didn't have. But my biggest complaint in terms of software is not the limitations imposed by GEDCOM, but the limitations imposed by most software that are NOT imposed by GEDCOM. -- Wes Groleau "But, Professor! I didn't plagiarize! I paid someone to write the essay for me, and that person plagiarized!" -- from http://rateyourstudents.blogspot.com

In article <mailman.527.1195063038.7651.gencmp@rootsweb.com>, Bob Velke <bvelke@whollygenes.com> writes: > T�henne said: > >>What good is it since the programs do not respect it ! >> >>It is not an update which would change that! > > It isn't as simple as that. > > All serious genealogy programs claim to > import/export GEDCOM and many don't adhere to my > interpretation of the specs. But some of those > developers claim that my programs don't adhere to > their interpretation of the specs. The fact that > it is open to so many varied interpretations is > one of its biggest weaknesses (e.g., the meaning > of the FAMily structure, assumed marriage of > parents, the sequence of undated children, > precedence of names, handling of word-wrapping, > unity of literally-identical sources, and on and on...). > > It is true that a few developers unapologetically > manipulate the specs in a way which _cannot_ be > defended as a difference in > interpretation. While I think those cases are > the minority, those developers would say that > they've taken liberties out of a necessity to > provide structured support for data types which > are not directly addressed by GEDCOM (e.g, > ambiguous parentage, shared non-spousal events, > witnesses, research tasks, and on and on...). > > Some of us choose to not transfer those types of > data with GEDCOM and others will manipulate it to > fit GEDCOM's very-limited data model. But both > of those are forms of data corruption, in my > opinion. When added to all the problems of > interpretation, the "it's better than nothing" > argument becomes" it is better to corrupt it than > to not transfer it" ... and that is at _least_ debatable. > > The cheerleading for GEDCOM on the grounds that > there's nothing else (even if that were true), > reminds me of when my kids complain when I won't > drive them to the mall. They say, "How are we > supposed to get there?" and I answer, "Who says > that you're supposed to get there?" > > Over the years, there have been many revisions to > GEDCOM which clarified some ambiguities, repaired > some internal inconsistencies, and expanded its > data model to account for some data types which > its developers hadn't considered. That is, those > revisions DID help to solidify the > "standard." But it is still woefully > insufficient on almost every scale - except among > those researchers whose world view of > genealogical data is limited to what PAF > supports. In the their defense, that was GEDCOM > developers' intended market and our application > of it for a larger purpose was wishful > thinking. It shouldn't surprise us that our > current complaints with it will never be addressed. > > Bob Velke > Wholly Genes, Inc. > > Bob, Surely the market isn't so cut-throat that you and the rest of the software houses can't get together and create a more modern standard? Something, because all were involved in its creation, all could/would agree to? Surely, a core standard, perhaps based on gedcom 5.5, with some scope for, ahh, individuality could be arrived at? Right now, it seems to me, the problem isn't with gedcom but with the way it's interpreted by the various software houses - if it's a standard, there's little or no enforcement, no "GoodHousekeeping Seal of Approval" or UL listing. It's not for me as a user to enforce the standard, save by refusing to purchase software that, in my opinion, is non-compliant. Bob Melson -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- "People unfit for freedom---who cannot do much with it---are hungry for power." ---Eric Hoffer

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:48:00 -0000, "Nigel Bufton" <nigel@bufton.org> wrote: >GEDCOM does not "group people into families" - the FAM records record >events, notes, sources, media, etc., regarding the family (which means any >combination of people containing one partner - usually plus a spouse and/or >children). There are no individual detail data stored within the FAM record >except that which pertains to the individual's status within the specific >family (e.g., HUSB, WIFE, CHIL) That's just the problem. HUSB WIFE are assumptiosn not necessarily warranted by the data. >How could it be possible to record the marriage data of two INDIs without a >FAM record? Even if your proposed FAM-less model included a SPOU tag for >each INDI and the marriage information was held in subtags to the SPOU tag, >there would be huge data integrity issues because each INDI/SPOU tag of a >partnership would need to maintain subtags recording identically duplicated >information. >The way to avoid data integrity issues is to store the data once and point >to it, rather than maintain multiple identical copies. The FAM record >provides precisely this. (As do the SOUR, REPO, OBJE, NOTE, etc., records.) > >From my experience of working with GEDCOM files from various sources, the >shortcomings are more a result of the weaknesses of genealogy program >creators in applying the standard correctly than a result of a weakness of >the standard . The program I use for first entry creates primary relationships of Individual-Father and Individual-Mother. You enter the details of the individual, and then the RIN of the father in the fagther field, and the RIN of the mother in the Mother field. If the father and mother were married, you endter the rin of the spouse in the spouse field, but that is something separate from the parent-child relationship. When I export the data to GEDCOM, the export program tells me that it "created" "family" records, because GEDCOM required it. The program itself can list all the children of one parent, rather than having to print two or more family group sheets. Here is an example: Family Group Report For: Margaret Agnes Ann Green (ID= 935) Date Prepared: 14 Nov 2007 NAME: GREEN, Margaret Agnes Ann, Born 8 Dec 1835 in Nova Scotia, Died 26 Dec 1902 in Marrickville, NSW, AUS at age 67; FATHER: GREEN, William John (Goodall), Born 28 Aug 1790, Died 9 Apr 1866 at age 75; MOTHER: GRAY, Margaret, Born 18 May 1795, Died 11 May 1844? at age 48; Came to Cape Colony at age of 11 with father and brothers. Married William Wilson while still young and emigrated to Australia. MARRIED 20 Aug 1879 in Adelaide, SA, to THWAITES, Walter William McLean, Born ??? 1841 in Sydney, NSW, Australia, Died 20 Mar 1908 in Victoria, Australia at age 67; FATHER: THWAITES, Walter William, Born ??? 1814, Died Feb 1888 at age 74; MOTHER: MCLEAN, Jane MARRIED 2 May 1871 in Sydney, NSW until 20 Aug 1879 in Adelaide, SA, to THWAITES, Walter William McLean, Born ??? 1841 in Sydney, NSW, Australia, Died 20 Mar 1908 in Victoria, Australia at age 67; FATHER: THWAITES, Walter William, Born ??? 1814, Died Feb 1888 at age 74; MOTHER: MCLEAN, Jane; Married first in Sydney, then again in Adelaide, because Sydney marriage was bigamous. MARRIED 9 Jan 1858 in Gundary, NSW, to FRANCIS, Alfred John Dawson, Born ??? 1820? in Liverpool, England, Died 5 Mar 1864 in Sydney, NSW at age 44; FATHER: FRANCIS, John; Witness: Dean Francis. He was a widower, she a widow, both of Bodalla.; Source: death date - family tree sent by Bob Cowley MARRIED ??? 1851 in Cape Town (?), to WILSON, William, Born ??? 1823? in Camberwell, London, Died 21 Apr 1856 in Tuross River, NSW at age 33; According to W. Wilson's death certificate, he married Margaret Agnes Glasgow at the Cape of Good Hope at the age of 28. CHILDREN: 1. F WILSON, Caroline Agnes, born 20 Apr 1854 in Sydney, NSW, died 7 Dec 1946 in North Havelock, NZ; Married 21 Jul 1874 to BRATHWAITE, Robert Ashley Warre; 8 children 2. F WILSON, Emily Eleanora, born 23 Aug 1855 in New South Wales, died 18 Jun 1859 in Yarragee, NSW, AUS 3. F FRANCIS, Ada Anne Angeline Fairfax, born 10 Mar 1859 in Bodalla, NSW, AUS, died 9 Nov 1938 in Ashfield, NSW, AUS; Married 1 Aug 1894 to WHITE, William 4. M FRANCIS, Arthur Walpole, born 7 Jan 1861 in Moruya, NSW, died 8 May 1921 in Mariental Dist. SWA; Married 2 Nov 1887 to DONOVAN, Ida Miranda Willoughby; 3 children 5. F FRANCIS, Edith Lilian, born 20 Aug 1862 in Yarragee, NSW, died 13 Oct 1926 in Melbourne, Vic. Aust.; Married 10 Oct 1885 to BRIDGES, William Throsby; 7 children 6. F FRANCIS, Louisa, born 3 Nov 1864 in Queanbeyan, NSW, died 18 Mar 1943 in Tenterfield, NSW; Married 24 Dec 1883 to COWLEY, Percy; 10 children 7. F THWAITES, Margaret Jane, born 20 Mar 1872 in Sydney, died ??? in Sydney 8. M THWAITES, Walter William Alfred, born 2 Jan 1874 in Sydney, NSW, Australia, died ???; Married 25 Jul 1895 to SAVAGE, Emily Victoria; 6 children 9. M THWAITES, Herbert Edward, born 28 Nov 1875 in Australia, died 28 Jan 1937 in Boksburg; Married to BRITTAIN, Motty Adeline; 2 children 10. F THWAITES, Elizabeth, born ??? 1876, died ??? -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk