On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:55:03 -0500, Bob Velke <bvelke@whollygenes.com> wrote: >Téhenne 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. It's apparently not *all* that difficult to write software that will read one programs data, and convert it to what another program expects... Gary Bonham did it with GEDCOM Explorer, you did it with Genbridge, and Bruce has done it in a limited manner with RootsMagic (imports FTM files). It's a shame Gary passed away.... it would really be nice if someone else picked up where he left off and made a program to convert GEDCOM files, or better yet, to convert one program's native data files to that of another. 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. -- Charlie Hoffpauir http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/