singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: > > Total agreement on the data-model will be achieved when If > And ONLY IF (IFF) only one person has to be pleased by it. There could never be total agreement on only one data model, and that's exactly why XML could be a solution! > I don't care to record the names of 200 wedding guests, > others want that information. Some people want to include > the GPS data on the precise place of burial; I figure the > name of the cemetery and a place-name is all the precision I > need 90% of the time (and the other 10%, I put in notes to > myself). > If the gps coords came from a trusted source and already "attached" (entered) with the cemetery info, would you discard it or keep it anyway (assuming you didn't have to look at it unless you wanted)? If you had the choice of not even storing it but discarding it automatically once you told the software to do so, would that ruin your day? > But so long as there is "room" in the market for conflicting > views on whether the GPS data is necessary or whether the > names of all witnesses (as opposed to only the official > witnesses as opposed to only the names of the participants) > are necessary ... there's gonna be a need for a data-model > so flexible it may as well not exist (see also: Gedcom > standard). > The flexible data model already exists and has for some time. What doesn't (quite yet, but getting there) exist is the software to manipulate it for the variety of user requirements & preferences. And, enough users to realize that and demand it. > IME, YMMV, and so on. > > Cheryl