On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:39:27 +0000, Ian Goddard <goddai01@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. -- 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

Steve Hayes wrote: > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:39:27 +0000, Ian Goddard <goddai01@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

"Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:0cokj396vvrkqut358fa7hrr4853ta9lma@4ax.com... > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:39:27 +0000, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> > wrote: > <snip> > 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. > <snip> 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) 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 . Nigel www.tcgr.bufton.org

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