In article <WxUni.6848$ct5.4376@trnddc06>, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> writes: > Robert Melson wrote: >> think applications like phpGedView, The Next Generation and, to > > Much as I like both of those, I have to > agree with Dr. Leverich--they really don't > offer any major innovation. They're just > improvements on the user interface of the > same basic thing. > I don't disagree. I very much like pGV, myself, but am certainly aware that overall it's not really a ground breaking application. Still, it does illustrate the point I was attempting to make - all the capability resides in/on the server, making it unnecessary for the local machine to install anything more forbidding than a browser. This, I think, is where things are probably heading <waves hands> in genealogy as well as in other areas. Bob Melson -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- "People unfit for freedom---who cannot do much with it---are hungry for power." ---Eric Hoffer

Robert Melson wrote: > think applications like phpGedView, The Next Generation and, to Much as I like both of those, I have to agree with Dr. Leverich--they really don't offer any major innovation. They're just improvements on the user interface of the same basic thing. -- Wes Groleau ----------- Daily Hoax: http://www.snopes2.com/cgi-bin/random/random.asp

In article <1184885911.795854.21970@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, "the_verminator@comcast.net" <the_verminator@comcast.net> writes: > On Jul 19, 10:51 am, moja...@mojaveg.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com (Everett M. > Greene) wrote: >> Wes Groleau <groleau+n...@freeshell.org> writes: >> > Everett M. Greene wrote: >> > > Not having looked at the XML-based proposals, I'm not familiar >> > > with what's being proposed, but if the preceding is a valid >> > > example, I don't see any significant benefit. As you say, >> > > there's not semantic difference and clutter is being added for >> > > no obvious reason. >> >> > That's why I said, it's like going from English to pig-Latin. >> > Semantically there is no difference. Any flaws in the GEDCOM >> > data model are in both versions. And there are flaws, though >> > GEDCOM obviously is not completely useless. (And that's why >> > no one seems to be in a big hurry to fix it.) >> >> > I can think of two advantges of XML: >> >> > 1. Open source and commercial XML parsers are everywhere. >> >> > 2. If you know how to use XSL, you can write a presentation >> > stylesheet. Your GEDCOM (XML) file plus the XSL is all >> > that's necessary for a sufficiently modern browser to >> > make a fairly nice web page. In other words, instead >> > of writing code to transform GEDCOM into HTML, you write >> > a high-level spec for that code, and the user's browser >> > does all the rest of the work! >> >> Those are valid points for those who are interested in generating >> Web-oriented presentations. But what portion of people dealing >> with genealogy are interested in doing that?- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Well.... if you enter the phrase "this website" and the word genealogy > into google it comes up with one million two hundred ninety thousand > hits. > > So someone is interested for sure! > > I think it goes beyond mere interest. With Micro$oft dabbling in their "cloud o/s" and much of the 'net already using the web to some degree for transactions of all sorts, it's probably only a matter of time before web-oriented presentations of genealogical data becomes the norm, rather than the exception. I think applications like phpGedView, The Next Generation and, to a lesser extent, GeneWeb represent the tip of that particular iceberg. Bob Melson -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- "People unfit for freedom---who cannot do much with it---are hungry for power." ---Eric Hoffer

On Jul 19, 6:29 pm, mels...@aragorn.rgmhome.net (Robert Melson) wrote: > I think it goes beyond mere interest. With Micro$oft dabbling > in their "cloud o/s" and much of the 'net already using the > web to some degree for transactions of all sorts, it's probably > only a matter of time before web-oriented presentations of > genealogical data becomes the norm, rather than the exception. I > think applications like phpGedView, The Next Generation and, to > a lesser extent, GeneWeb represent the tip of that particular > iceberg. > > Bob Melson I agree. John Cardinal's Second Site 2 (just released) is one of the better tools for web presentations I've seen. Easily customized, quick, and powerful. Unfortunately it is, for the present, restricted to using TMG (The Master Genealogist) files. For less than $30 it can't be beat!

In our last episode, <EvMni.4454$SM6.841@trnddc01>, the lovely and talented Wes Groleau broadcast on soc.genealogy.computing: > Peter J Seymour wrote: >> do the latter part. It may have relevance to genealogy, but it is on a >> lesser scale of importance than marriage. > That's if you insist on an etymologically correct definition of genealogy. I'm not so sure that insisting on an etymologically correct definition of genealogy will get you there. Genealogy, it appears, has been an English word since the 14th century. You might translate its Greek roots as "race science," which I am pretty sure would make some people uncomfortable who are not otherwise especiallly known for political correctness. Mendel, of course, did not live until the 19th century. He was about 9 years old when the word genetic entered the English language, when it seemed to have something to do with causality in general. DNA testing has only become possible within the lifetimes of people reading this post. Like it or not, people in most of the last six centuries who may have thought they were doing something else with "genealogy," were doing "family history." > The majority of people interested in "genealogy" are actually more > interested in what I think is better called family history. > But neither software nor internet sources are very helpful > with family history, so we end up with quite a bit of > genealogy--in the sense of statements of genetic relationship-- > that is very poorly done. -- Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner> Countdown: 550 days to go. Owing to massive spam from googlegroups, I do not see most posts from there.

Peter J Seymour wrote: > do the latter part. It may have relevance to genealogy, but it is on a > lesser scale of importance than marriage. That's if you insist on an etymologically correct definition of genealogy. The majority of people interested in "genealogy" are actually more interested in what I think is better called family history. But neither software nor internet sources are very helpful with family history, so we end up with quite a bit of genealogy--in the sense of statements of genetic relationship-- that is very poorly done. -- Wes Groleau He that complies against his will is of the same opinion still. -- Samuel Butler, 1612-1680

On Jul 19, 10:51 am, moja...@mojaveg.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com (Everett M. Greene) wrote: > Wes Groleau <groleau+n...@freeshell.org> writes: > > Everett M. Greene wrote: > > > Not having looked at the XML-based proposals, I'm not familiar > > > with what's being proposed, but if the preceding is a valid > > > example, I don't see any significant benefit. As you say, > > > there's not semantic difference and clutter is being added for > > > no obvious reason. > > > That's why I said, it's like going from English to pig-Latin. > > Semantically there is no difference. Any flaws in the GEDCOM > > data model are in both versions. And there are flaws, though > > GEDCOM obviously is not completely useless. (And that's why > > no one seems to be in a big hurry to fix it.) > > > I can think of two advantges of XML: > > > 1. Open source and commercial XML parsers are everywhere. > > > 2. If you know how to use XSL, you can write a presentation > > stylesheet. Your GEDCOM (XML) file plus the XSL is all > > that's necessary for a sufficiently modern browser to > > make a fairly nice web page. In other words, instead > > of writing code to transform GEDCOM into HTML, you write > > a high-level spec for that code, and the user's browser > > does all the rest of the work! > > Those are valid points for those who are interested in generating > Web-oriented presentations. But what portion of people dealing > with genealogy are interested in doing that?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well.... if you enter the phrase "this website" and the word genealogy into google it comes up with one million two hundred ninety thousand hits. So someone is interested for sure!

Peter J Seymour wrote: > Just one quibble: In the UK "same-sex marraige" is called a "civil > union" which avoids the inappropriate use of the word marriage. > "Marriage" in this context may be defined as a male-female partnership > regulating the ownership of property and also usually involving the > begetting and raising of children. A same-sex partnership simply can't > do the latter part. It may have relevance to genealogy, but it is on a > lesser scale of importance than marriage. > > Peter It will be important in those cases where the partners can adopt children as is now allowed in UK law. -- Ian Goddard Hotmail is for the benefit of spammers. The email address that I actually read is igoddard and that's at nildram dot co dot uk

Wes Groleau wrote: > Denis Beauregard wrote: >> For example, a family is a set of persons where 2 persons have >> a special role (dad and mom), and the other persons a more >> general role (kids). You can say a car is a of pieces, or an > > This is a good description of MOST families, but one > of the flaws of GEDCOM is that it institutionalizes > the false notion that there is no other kind of family. > > Sure, they eventually put in ways to get around it, but > those ways are klugey and not supported by many programs. > > However, because GEDCOM _is_ adequate for most families, > it is "good enough" for all but the most fanatic of > genealogists. Thus the K-Mart philosophy takes hold-- > if 90% of people don't need what you want, you can't have it. > Hit nail on head! In a well designed piece of software a disproportionate amount of code goes to dealing with exceptional cases. If that provision isn't there then the cases can't be dealt with. It's very likely that it would be easier to start again than to retrofit the exceptions into a data structure which isn't designed to use them. IMV the problem with almost all the software I've seen is that the core framework is the family tree whereas the core framework ought to be the evidence. The family tree is a structure which emerges from the data - if you're lucky enough. The fact that in most cases the data is sufficient to let a structure (whether it's correct or not is a different matter) emerge is what makes Gedcom "adequate for most families". I've had a brief attempt to get to grips with Gramps without too much success. Maybe I should get back to it or else write my own. -- Ian Goddard Hotmail is for the benefit of spammers. The email address that I actually read is igoddard and that's at nildram dot co dot uk

In our last episode, <f7n62n$puv$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>, the lovely and talented Peter J Seymour broadcast on soc.genealogy.misc: > What I meant to add is that this is the sort of justification put > forward by the LDS for their XML Gedcom. It didn't help them much. In my > opinion, XML is a side issue. It may or may not have a role to play, > depending on how people want to proceed. Appropriate data design is what > counts and should come before implementation issues such as XML. The main advantage of XML is that namespaces will make it possible (and in well-behaved applications, necessary) for each product to define what it means by its tags. At present, that will make it possible for human developers to translate one format to another. The ultimate goal would seem to be to automate the business of translating from one namespace to another, so a very smart application that used a "spouse" tag could figure out how to handle input that used "HUSB" and "WIFE" without a human developer having to tell it. Of course, it never will be possible to get all the information from a more flexible format into a more restrictive one without losing some information. -- Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner> Countdown: 551 days to go. Owing to massive spam from googlegroups, I do not see most posts from there.

Peter J Seymour wrote: > David Harper wrote: > >> Lars Eighner wrote: >> >>> Here is the problem: GEDCOM has become the de facto standard for family >>> history and geneology data. And the problem with that is that the >>> Mormons >>> own GEDCOM and thus it is rife with built-in religious limitations. >> >> >> >> That's an unfair characterisation of both the Mormons and of the >> GEDCOM format, in my view. >> >> Whatever you may think of the LDS Church, the genealogy community has >> much to thank them for. Without them, a huge amount of genealogical >> data would be locked away in government archives instead of available >> for us to use. >> >> And this was true even before the rise of the Internet. The LDS >> Church paid to have priceless resources such as British census returns >> copied onto microfilm, and their family history centres were open to >> everyone. >> >> For the record, incidentally, I'm not a member of the LDS Church, or >> indeed any church. I'm just an amateur genealogist whose research in >> the 1980s wouldn't have got very far, were it not for the resources >> provided by the Mormons. >> >> As to the GEDCOM format, it originated with the LDS Church, and they >> maintain the standard, but at least it is an open standard that any >> developer of genealogy software can use without having to pay a >> licence fee or sign a non-disclosure agreement. >> >> That very openness is why every major piece of genealogy software can >> import and export GEDCOM files. >> >>> As you might expect, GEDCOM does not allow you to enter a family >>> created by >>> same-sex marriage or civil unions even where they are lawful. But >>> there are >>> other limitations. For example, in GEDCOM 5.xx, an adopted child >>> does not >>> belong to his family. When he looks up his family in a GEDCOM-compliant >>> file, he is not there. How needlessly hurtful is that? >> >> >> >> There are three separate issues here. >> >> First, adoption. The GEDCOM 5.5 standard includes two different ways >> to specify an adoptive relationship, as well as providing a way to >> indicate both the adoptive family and the biological family of an >> individual. It even includes a way to describe a foster-family >> relationship. >> >> So, it is plain wrong to imply that an adopted child cannot be linked >> to both his adoptive family and his birth family in a GEDCOM file, >> provided, of course, that his birth family is known. >> >> Second, civil unions. There is no reason why a civil union between a >> man and a woman cannot be represented in a GEDCOM file. If you do not >> wish to record it as a marriage, that's fine. GEDCOM provides a >> generic event tag which can be used to describe all manner of events >> outside those specifically catered for. You can add a civil union >> ceremony via that route, if your genealogy application is smart enough. >> >> Finally, same-sex marriages. Okay, you have a point here. GEDCOM >> defines a family unit to be a husband and a wife, plus children. >> >> That's pretty much the only type of family unit you'll encounter in >> historical records, which makes up most of the data in the vast >> majority of GEDCOM files. >> >> Same-sex marriage is still a very new phenomenon, and the GEDCOM >> standard hasn't caught up with the changing zeitgeist. Then again, >> neither have the governments of most of the countries of the world, >> and to be frank, I consider that to be a greater injustice than the >> fact that the GEDCOM standard doesn't allow it. >> >> David Harper >> Cambridge, England > > Just one quibble: In the UK "same-sex marraige" is called a "civil > union" which avoids the inappropriate use of the word marriage. Oops, I think I meant "civil partnership" > "Marriage" in this context may be defined as a male-female partnership > regulating the ownership of property and also usually involving the > begetting and raising of children. A same-sex partnership simply can't > do the latter part. It may have relevance to genealogy, but it is on a > lesser scale of importance than marriage. > > Peter

Denis Beauregard wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:19:54 +0100, Peter J Seymour > <moz@pjsey.demon.co.uk> wrote in soc.genealogy.computing: > > >>Denis Beauregard wrote: >>... >> >>>The gain is because there are more and more tools to read XML >>>files and to handle this kind of data, event if it is not the >>>same as you use in genealogy. >>> >>>For example, a family is a set of persons where 2 persons have >>>a special role (dad and mom), and the other persons a more >>>general role (kids). You can say a car is a of pieces, or an >>>army regiment is a set of persons, etc. Then you can define >>>database operations like putting someone in the right box by >>>dragging that person, i.e. drag John to the dad's box or to the >>>captain's box, or drag the name of the cathedral to the relevant >>>box, etc. So, in theory, you could achieve many predefined >>>operations with the same code and getting some universal >>>genealogy software that will process the persons, but also the >>>events, the places, the groups (army, state employees, churchmen, >>>town elected, trades), the sources, etc. Then you get some kind >>>of very powerful genealogy system. >>> >> >>... >> >>>Denis >>> >> >>But that's not specific to XML? > > > What is specific to XML is the development of tools to handle this > kind of structures. GEDCOM can be developed by genealogists only. > XML can be developed by any programmer, so more development is > expected. > > > Denis > What I meant to add is that this is the sort of justification put forward by the LDS for their XML Gedcom. It didn't help them much. In my opinion, XML is a side issue. It may or may not have a role to play, depending on how people want to proceed. Appropriate data design is what counts and should come before implementation issues such as XML. Peter

David Harper wrote: > Lars Eighner wrote: > >> Here is the problem: GEDCOM has become the de facto standard for family >> history and geneology data. And the problem with that is that the >> Mormons >> own GEDCOM and thus it is rife with built-in religious limitations. > > > That's an unfair characterisation of both the Mormons and of the GEDCOM > format, in my view. > > Whatever you may think of the LDS Church, the genealogy community has > much to thank them for. Without them, a huge amount of genealogical > data would be locked away in government archives instead of available > for us to use. > > And this was true even before the rise of the Internet. The LDS Church > paid to have priceless resources such as British census returns copied > onto microfilm, and their family history centres were open to everyone. > > For the record, incidentally, I'm not a member of the LDS Church, or > indeed any church. I'm just an amateur genealogist whose research in > the 1980s wouldn't have got very far, were it not for the resources > provided by the Mormons. > > As to the GEDCOM format, it originated with the LDS Church, and they > maintain the standard, but at least it is an open standard that any > developer of genealogy software can use without having to pay a licence > fee or sign a non-disclosure agreement. > > That very openness is why every major piece of genealogy software can > import and export GEDCOM files. > >> As you might expect, GEDCOM does not allow you to enter a family >> created by >> same-sex marriage or civil unions even where they are lawful. But >> there are >> other limitations. For example, in GEDCOM 5.xx, an adopted child does >> not >> belong to his family. When he looks up his family in a GEDCOM-compliant >> file, he is not there. How needlessly hurtful is that? > > > There are three separate issues here. > > First, adoption. The GEDCOM 5.5 standard includes two different ways to > specify an adoptive relationship, as well as providing a way to indicate > both the adoptive family and the biological family of an individual. It > even includes a way to describe a foster-family relationship. > > So, it is plain wrong to imply that an adopted child cannot be linked to > both his adoptive family and his birth family in a GEDCOM file, > provided, of course, that his birth family is known. > > Second, civil unions. There is no reason why a civil union between a > man and a woman cannot be represented in a GEDCOM file. If you do not > wish to record it as a marriage, that's fine. GEDCOM provides a generic > event tag which can be used to describe all manner of events outside > those specifically catered for. You can add a civil union ceremony via > that route, if your genealogy application is smart enough. > > Finally, same-sex marriages. Okay, you have a point here. GEDCOM > defines a family unit to be a husband and a wife, plus children. > > That's pretty much the only type of family unit you'll encounter in > historical records, which makes up most of the data in the vast majority > of GEDCOM files. > > Same-sex marriage is still a very new phenomenon, and the GEDCOM > standard hasn't caught up with the changing zeitgeist. Then again, > neither have the governments of most of the countries of the world, and > to be frank, I consider that to be a greater injustice than the fact > that the GEDCOM standard doesn't allow it. > > David Harper > Cambridge, England Just one quibble: In the UK "same-sex marraige" is called a "civil union" which avoids the inappropriate use of the word marriage. "Marriage" in this context may be defined as a male-female partnership regulating the ownership of property and also usually involving the begetting and raising of children. A same-sex partnership simply can't do the latter part. It may have relevance to genealogy, but it is on a lesser scale of importance than marriage. Peter

Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> writes: > Everett M. Greene wrote: > > Not having looked at the XML-based proposals, I'm not familiar > > with what's being proposed, but if the preceding is a valid > > example, I don't see any significant benefit. As you say, > > there's not semantic difference and clutter is being added for > > no obvious reason. > > That's why I said, it's like going from English to pig-Latin. > Semantically there is no difference. Any flaws in the GEDCOM > data model are in both versions. And there are flaws, though > GEDCOM obviously is not completely useless. (And that's why > no one seems to be in a big hurry to fix it.) > > I can think of two advantges of XML: > > 1. Open source and commercial XML parsers are everywhere. > > 2. If you know how to use XSL, you can write a presentation > stylesheet. Your GEDCOM (XML) file plus the XSL is all > that's necessary for a sufficiently modern browser to > make a fairly nice web page. In other words, instead > of writing code to transform GEDCOM into HTML, you write > a high-level spec for that code, and the user's browser > does all the rest of the work! Those are valid points for those who are interested in generating Web-oriented presentations. But what portion of people dealing with genealogy are interested in doing that?

singhals <singhals@erols.com> writes: > the_verminator@comcast.net wrote: > > > I'd even go so far as to say that the GEDCOM has done more to hurt > > online genealogy than it has to help it as it allows the almost > > But then again -- GEDCOM outdates on-line genealogy as we > know it today, and was NEVER intended to carry more than a > basic Name-date-place and the necessary links to produce a > family group sheet. > > Sourcing wasn't part of its mandate. > > People kept hanging tinsel on it and wondering why it > doesn't fly. > > > instantanous transmission of unsourced genealogical garbage and does > > too little to encourage sound genealogical research (i.e. mandatory > > entry of standard sources and citations). > > But then again -- not all genealogical valid sources can be > called "standard". Some people approach genealogy as if they are going into court with the data and want to have irrefutable evidence of the data's correctness. Others approach genealogy more as a newspaper report -- believed to be accurate but occasional mistakes, inaccuracies, disinformation, etc. slip in with the good data. Which audience is being addressed?

Wes Groleau wrote: > I take it back--the worst I've seen came from a program > that desperately took on the futile challenge not only To be fair, that program had other features so useful that I wouldn't use anything else for quite a while. Eventually, I no longer needed those features as much, so I switched to LifeLines for a better implementation of GEDCOM (i.e., less limited). Finally, even LifeLines restrictions on GEDCOM became an irritation to me and I settled for editing GEDCOM directly. Which of course is very error-prone, but .... -- Wes Groleau ----------- I've been framed! ... http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9612.html

Denis Beauregard wrote: > For example, a family is a set of persons where 2 persons have > a special role (dad and mom), and the other persons a more > general role (kids). You can say a car is a of pieces, or an This is a good description of MOST families, but one of the flaws of GEDCOM is that it institutionalizes the false notion that there is no other kind of family. Sure, they eventually put in ways to get around it, but those ways are klugey and not supported by many programs. However, because GEDCOM _is_ adequate for most families, it is "good enough" for all but the most fanatic of genealogists. Thus the K-Mart philosophy takes hold-- if 90% of people don't need what you want, you can't have it. -- Wes Groleau Alive and Well http://freepages.religions.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau/

Everett M. Greene wrote: > Not having looked at the XML-based proposals, I'm not familiar > with what's being proposed, but if the preceding is a valid > example, I don't see any significant benefit. As you say, > there's not semantic difference and clutter is being added for > no obvious reason. That's why I said, it's like going from English to pig-Latin. Semantically there is no difference. Any flaws in the GEDCOM data model are in both versions. And there are flaws, though GEDCOM obviously is not completely useless. (And that's why no one seems to be in a big hurry to fix it.) I can think of two advantges of XML: 1. Open source and commercial XML parsers are everywhere. 2. If you know how to use XSL, you can write a presentation stylesheet. Your GEDCOM (XML) file plus the XSL is all that's necessary for a sufficiently modern browser to make a fairly nice web page. In other words, instead of writing code to transform GEDCOM into HTML, you write a high-level spec for that code, and the user's browser does all the rest of the work! -- Wes Groleau Promote multi-use trails in northeast Indiana! http://www.NorthwestAllenTrails.org/

In article <1184788031.775481.5100@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, "the_verminator@comcast.net" <the_verminator@comcast.net> writes: > On Jul 17, 11:39 am, mels...@aragorn.rgmhome.net (Robert Melson) <snip> >> Out of curiosity, what would you suggest replace the gedcom >> "standard"? Is the problem so much with the standard or with >> the programs that implement it? As Micro$oft and Oracle have >> amply proved, a standard exists as a standard only so long as >> the players consider themselves bound by it; once the standard >> is breached it becomes meaningless. >> >> Bob Melson > > I suggest a narrative text file. That is what I give others to whom I > provide information. Thus, I am free to give exactly the information I > want to give complete with cautions and warnings about sources, > citations, etc. > > If I'm provided with a gedcom I'll import it to a database and then > print out an individual report on each person to see what exactly I > want to enter into my main program. > > A second benefit is that unless someone wants to do a LOT of typing > I'm unlikely to see my work spread over the internet willy-nilly > without crediting me as the source of the information. > > I'll gladly provide info on individuals but balk at providing whole > lines to name collectors. > > I'd even go so far as to say that the GEDCOM has done more to hurt > online genealogy than it has to help it as it allows the almost > instantanous transmission of unsourced genealogical garbage and does > too little to encourage sound genealogical research (i.e. mandatory > entry of standard sources and citations). > > But is that latter a fault of the GEDCOM standard or of its implementation in, e.g., FTM? Keep in mind that GEDCOM is a data exchange standard and nothing more and has nothing to do with how you or I conduct our research or how strictly we adhere to standards for sourcing, etc. The fact that the data exchange standard has no provision for "sanitizing" the data being exchanged is, I think, beyond the scope of the standard. The failure, if failure it is, is in the programs in use and in the people using them. While it's not a 100% cure - source info CAN be "cooked" - wouldn't it be better if the various programs prevented data entry without sourcing or a statement like "No source available"? Bob Melson -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- "People unfit for freedom---who cannot do much with it---are hungry for power." ---Eric Hoffer

Lars Eighner wrote: > Here is the problem: GEDCOM has become the de facto standard for family > history and geneology data. And the problem with that is that the Mormons > own GEDCOM and thus it is rife with built-in religious limitations. That's an unfair characterisation of both the Mormons and of the GEDCOM format, in my view. Whatever you may think of the LDS Church, the genealogy community has much to thank them for. Without them, a huge amount of genealogical data would be locked away in government archives instead of available for us to use. And this was true even before the rise of the Internet. The LDS Church paid to have priceless resources such as British census returns copied onto microfilm, and their family history centres were open to everyone. For the record, incidentally, I'm not a member of the LDS Church, or indeed any church. I'm just an amateur genealogist whose research in the 1980s wouldn't have got very far, were it not for the resources provided by the Mormons. As to the GEDCOM format, it originated with the LDS Church, and they maintain the standard, but at least it is an open standard that any developer of genealogy software can use without having to pay a licence fee or sign a non-disclosure agreement. That very openness is why every major piece of genealogy software can import and export GEDCOM files. > As you might expect, GEDCOM does not allow you to enter a family created by > same-sex marriage or civil unions even where they are lawful. But there are > other limitations. For example, in GEDCOM 5.xx, an adopted child does not > belong to his family. When he looks up his family in a GEDCOM-compliant > file, he is not there. How needlessly hurtful is that? There are three separate issues here. First, adoption. The GEDCOM 5.5 standard includes two different ways to specify an adoptive relationship, as well as providing a way to indicate both the adoptive family and the biological family of an individual. It even includes a way to describe a foster-family relationship. So, it is plain wrong to imply that an adopted child cannot be linked to both his adoptive family and his birth family in a GEDCOM file, provided, of course, that his birth family is known. Second, civil unions. There is no reason why a civil union between a man and a woman cannot be represented in a GEDCOM file. If you do not wish to record it as a marriage, that's fine. GEDCOM provides a generic event tag which can be used to describe all manner of events outside those specifically catered for. You can add a civil union ceremony via that route, if your genealogy application is smart enough. Finally, same-sex marriages. Okay, you have a point here. GEDCOM defines a family unit to be a husband and a wife, plus children. That's pretty much the only type of family unit you'll encounter in historical records, which makes up most of the data in the vast majority of GEDCOM files. Same-sex marriage is still a very new phenomenon, and the GEDCOM standard hasn't caught up with the changing zeitgeist. Then again, neither have the governments of most of the countries of the world, and to be frank, I consider that to be a greater injustice than the fact that the GEDCOM standard doesn't allow it. David Harper Cambridge, England