"Bob Velke" <bvelke@whollygenes.com> wrote in message news:mailman.667.1197558601.4586.gencmp@rootsweb.com... > Doug said: > >>Will FTM and TMG agree to change their basic workings so they are the >>same? > > If they did, what would be the point in having two of them? Both programs > are successful because their features cater to researchers who have > different needs and standards for genealogical data. GEDCOM likewise has > its own agenda which is why it does such a poor job of accommodating the > universe of genealogy programs. > >>In genealogy there really is only one single absolute given, at least, if >>one attributes the meaning of "is" to mean >>"born before DNA technology on people". That is, a given person, going >>back in time, has a binary >>tree of ancestors, exactly two per generation, with possible coelescence. > > That is certainly the foundation of PAF and other programs that were > designed 20 years ago. > > More modern programs are slowing coming around to the realization that > genealogy is not about recording facts. It is about recording and > evaluating _evidence_. And evidence doesn't play by such neat and tidy > rules. > > Bob Velke > Wholly Genes Software Very well said Bob. And, JD, a nice clear explanation. I have a question. Is Evidence an attribute of Facts? This movement for an XML version of GEDCOM has been going on for years. It is too bad that some organization or coalition doesn't or can't come to an agreement on a specification. Yes, it will take some training and programming for every genealogy software vendor's to write new code. But, it seems to me that it is only a short run problem that should pay off in the long run. Gordo