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.