Subject: Re: GEDCOM as a database format FLAPDOODLE! Recent contributions on this SIG contain confusing, often argumentative, rhetoric about genealogy and GEDCOMs ... Please, gurus all: it would really help IF you would use a spell check (e.g. the subject line error) and edit messages; IF you would use English without descent into jargon (which has as many dialects as there are discussants), replacing gobbledygook with plainspeak; IF you would refrain from using self-serving arch comments (see how clever i am), sophisticated putdowns, and demeaning childish yah yah yahs (yer mother wears army boots, stoopid); IF you would recommit to fostering an understanding of the technical aspect of compugenealogy for non-experts as well as cognoscente; IF you would continue to question, to respect suggestions, and to re-evaluate; IF you would admit that you might be wrong or have no answer; Please:: more wise comments, less wise cracks and ... FLAPDOODLE ... hava happy holiday ken gompertz gomog@optusnet.com.au Message: 10 Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:49:15 -0500 From: "T.M. Sommers" <tms@nj.net> Subject: Re: GEDOM as a database format To: gencmp@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <4764760a$0$30082$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed singhals wrote: > 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. >> >> 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? Yes. GEDCOM allows multiple names. > 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? GEDCOM says day month year. > Whose > calendar are we using? GEDCOM allows you to specify your calendar. > Source: you mean, where did _I_ get the info or where the info originate? That's a semantic issue, not a syntactic one, but I believe the former is the scholarly standard, with a note citing the source's source. > "Notes": Many of us feel "NOTES" is the proper place to put source > citations, That's what the SOUR tag is for. > 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. The NOTE tag can be used for anything. > Others feel that > "NOTES" are the only place to put details of physical descriptions and > the like. That's what the DSCR tag is for. > SOME other folk call some of those COMMENTS instead of NOTES. Call it what you want, the tag is NOTE. > 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. No standard, on any subject, will be 100% agreeable to everyone. Someone will always find some part or other "wrong". However, if we want to work and communicate with each other, we have to use standards, so some compromise is required. Take spelling. If you insist on spelling words the way you think is proper, you have only yourself to blame if no one understands or even reads what you ruheet. -- Thomas M. Sommers -- tms@nj.net -- AB2SB