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