JD <jd4x4@ wrote: > Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in > news:fjrft2$vj3$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu: > > >>XML is like ISO 9000/9001: it it form without meaning or purpose. >>It is basically meaningless. It is in the same category as >>"proofs" that a computer program is "correct" ... based on >>some "requirement" that itself could be buggy as can be. >> > > > Wow. I'm not sure where to start. One of the primary benefits that I see > with XML is that (one of) it's purposes is structure, yet flexibility to > adapt and extend. The second would be that definitions are known (by > virtue of the <shudder> structure of the schema document) by anyone who > wants to use the data. -see more about that below.. > > >>What matters is not the form but the meaning. And I seriously doubt >>that the genealogy community will agree to one straitjacket >>format for meaning, that is, structure. Will FTM and TMG agree > > > Certainly everyone can agree on items such as Name, Date, Source, Notes, > Comments, etc. > Yes?? No. Cheryl

singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote in news:HY-dnZWMyuQFNP_anZ2dnUVZ_sytnZ2d@rcn.net: > JD <jd4x4@ wrote: >> Certainly everyone can agree on items such as Name, Date, Source, >> Notes, Comments, etc. >> Yes?? > > > No. > > Cheryl When you say "No." are you saying that there is a disagreement about the usefulness of these items, or the labels that I used to describe them?

JD <jd4x4@ wrote: > singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote in > news:HY-dnZWMyuQFNP_anZ2dnUVZ_sytnZ2d@rcn.net: > > >>JD <jd4x4@ wrote: >> >>>Certainly everyone can agree on items such as Name, Date, Source, >>>Notes, Comments, etc. >>>Yes?? >> >> >>No. >> >>Cheryl > > > When you say "No." are you saying that there is a disagreement about the > usefulness of these items, or the labels that I used to describe them? Neither. I'm saying that there is no general agreement as to the appropriate content of a field with nearly any label at all. Name: should this contain the name on the birth certificate, the name on the marriage license, or the name by which the individual was known? Date: the date of the event as reported, or the date of the report of the event? Is it dd MMM yyyy or yyyy mm dd or mm dd yyyy? Whose calendar are we using? Source: you mean, where did _I_ get the info or where the info originate? "Notes": Many of us feel "NOTES" is the proper place to put source citations, as well as narrative about the person or family group. Others feel "NOTES" should be confined to check lists of things that need checking/doing/researching on this person. Others feel that "NOTES" are the only place to put details of physical descriptions and the like. SOME other folk call some of those COMMENTS instead of NOTES. So long as those definitions are all in play, then enforced standardization is impossible and probably undesirable. Worse, once there is somesort of enforced standardization, a certain number of people (probably including me) will spend enormous amounts of time circumventing the requirements, for the perfectly valid reason: I don't like to do it that way. As a lagniappe, we can then proceed to foul up YOUR system. The fact that I don't care how you organize, record, store, or retrieve your data, so long as I can do it the way _I_ prefer in my own data, is the reaon there are so many genie programs out there and the reason none of them do a real fine job of GEDCOM transport anything past name, date, place, relationship. Cheryl

singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote in news:DNKdnaASAKwG3_nanZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@rcn.net: > JD <jd4x4@ wrote: > >> singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote in >> news:HY-dnZWMyuQFNP_anZ2dnUVZ_sytnZ2d@rcn.net: >> >> >>>JD <jd4x4@ wrote: >>> >>>>Certainly everyone can agree on items such as Name, Date, Source, >>>>Notes, Comments, etc. >>>>Yes?? >>> >>> >>>No. >>> >>>Cheryl >> >> >> When you say "No." are you saying that there is a disagreement about >> the usefulness of these items, or the labels that I used to describe >> them? > When I wrote the reply, I had a feeling you would be going in a couple of different places eventually, and I had a longer reply but decided to take then one step at a time. :-) > Neither. I'm saying that there is no general agreement as > to the appropriate content of a field with nearly any label > at all. > Re-reading my example, I could see that I was mixing some items for the sake of not being totally XML-compliant (anal).. for conceptual brevity. But, here goes... > Name: should this contain the name on the birth certificate, > the name on the marriage license, or the name by which the > individual was known? > Yes. What the actual value for this data item depends on where it came from. See Source, below. > Date: the date of the event as reported, or the date of the > report of the event? Is it dd MMM yyyy or yyyy mm dd or mm > dd yyyy? Whose calendar are we using? > Both, all. Which date data item are we talking about, and what's the source and/or context? > Source: you mean, where did _I_ get the info or where the > info originate? > OK, Source shouldn't have been used so generally because it needs to be made up of a name & a date as well as a required element of the other elements, and it (depending on your location in the info chain, because if you add/modify it and pass it on you're now a source) may itself be made up of multiple instances. > "Notes": Many of us feel "NOTES" is the proper place to > put source citations, as well as narrative about the person > or family group. Others feel "NOTES" should be confined to > check lists of things that need checking/doing/researching > on this person. Others feel that "NOTES" are the only place > to put details of physical descriptions and the like. SOME > other folk call some of those COMMENTS instead of NOTES. > Yup. Knew notes & comments were a mistake, too. Again, I meant these kind of conceptually as in what you find in them now. I can't say that I agree with whoever thinks citations are notes, but whatever floats their boat is fine. Their software & schema can remap the source element(s) to whatever they like if they get my data that has a source element. If they enter a new item that they might consider a citation, but has a note tag on it I'll evaluate it, but without it being tagged as a source record... it isn't .. in my schema, and I know that in their schema it's a note. But I'll have their schema and I can evaluate their context. > So long as those definitions are all in play, then enforced > standardization is impossible and probably undesirable. I'm simply saying that XML provides a way to tag data, and see what the context is by virtue of a schema. As part of it's design, I can see their rules. ie, a name requires a source, or it doesn't. If it doesn't then I'm no worse off than I am now. If my rules differ from theirs but they at least agree to tag things according to SOME scheme and it's XML compliant then I know the context and I can have a machine do a lot of work for me. The only thing that's forced is a tag for what you call the data and show me how you group them together. > Worse, once there is somesort of enforced standardization, a > certain number of people (probably including me) will spend > enormous amounts of time circumventing the requirements, for > the perfectly valid reason: I don't like to do it that way. > As a lagniappe, we can then proceed to foul up YOUR system. > > The fact that I don't care how you organize, record, store, > or retrieve your data, so long as I can do it the way _I_ > prefer in my own data, is the reaon there are so many genie > programs out there and the reason none of them do a real > fine job of GEDCOM transport anything past name, date, > place, relationship. > GEDCOM only requires a tag and a suggested model of what relates to what. If every piece of software gave you a file that only gave you the data with a tag that was the same as the name of the box that you typed the data into, and the file also showed you how there was a relationship (if any) between the data boxes, would you be better off? > Cheryl