In article <1184689853.767732.28500@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "the_verminator@comcast.net" <the_verminator@comcast.net> writes: > On Jul 17, 12:34 am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> 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. >> >> 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? >> >> If a guy marries his 14-year-old cousin as his fifth wife, GEDCOM has no >> problem dealing with that kind of family. But it cannot handle the Brady >> Bunch. >> >> Now I suppose you could defend GEDCOM by saying it is supposed to record >> only genetic --- that is, biological --- relationships. And of course, >> there are important scientific and especially medical uses for that kind of >> information. But it is not really true that GEDCOM records biological >> relationships. It presumes that the husband of a woman who bears a child is >> the father of the child, and we know since there is now DNA testing that >> assumption is untrue in a significant portion of cases. >> >> Which brings me to my point. I'd like to develop a family history system >> that is as compatible with GEDCOM as possible (since it is, as I have said, >> the de facto standard with tons of software applications), but with >> extensions to handle many diverse kinds of families that exist both in >> modern America and in many traditional cultures. >> >> So, I would be grateful for any pointers to existing software that handles >> all families or suggestions for extensions. >> >> -- >> Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner> >> Countdown: 553 days to go. >> Owing to massive spam from googlegroups, I do not see most posts from there. > > Check out The Master Genealogist. > > As an aside you should note that any program that depends on GEDCOM > for anything other basic BMD info will have serious shortcomings > depending on how the exporting and importing software follow the > GEDCOM "standard" - which, imho, should be scrapped in its entirety. > > 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 -- 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

In our last episode, <2h6ni.9164$zA4.5373@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, the lovely and talented Robert Melson broadcast on soc.genealogy.misc: > Out of curiosity, what would you suggest replace the gedcom > "standard"? Is the problem so much with the standard or with > the programs that implement it? As Micro$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. Well, at this point, thanks to a suggestion on another group, I am looking at gramps. Since it is open source, it seems to me possible that I can devise a commandline interface to it. -- Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner> Countdown: 552 days to go. Owing to massive spam from googlegroups, I do not see most posts from there.

In article <slrnf9pttu.fnh.usenet@goodwill.larseighner.com>, Lars Eighner <usenet@larseighner.com> writes: > In our last episode, <2h6ni.9164$zA4.5373@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > the lovely and talented Robert Melson broadcast on soc.genealogy.misc: > >> Out of curiosity, what would you suggest replace the gedcom >> "standard"? Is the problem so much with the standard or with >> the programs that implement it? As Micro$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. > > Well, at this point, thanks to a suggestion on another group, > I am looking at gramps. Since it is open source, it seems to me possible > that I can devise a commandline interface to it. > If I'm not totally mistaken, though, the gramps xml scheme is built on gedcom 5.5, which would seem counter to what you propose. As well, I believe there already IS a command-line interface to gramps. After all the early drum-pounding and huzzahs, it seems the proposed gedcom 6 standard, based on xml, has died aborning. The concept, however, is something you might want to look into. If you can't track down a copy of the draft standard, let me know, I think I may still have a copy stashed, together with some DTDs to go with it. 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: > > 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 > > Well, for a start I'd want it to be based on XML. That would mean that the standard could be extended as required. An example of such extension would be the ability to deal with modern surnames, various patronymic systems and the various styles of epithet which evolved into surnames. I'd also want it to handle the records of individuals separate from their genealogical roles. To illustrate, Kirkburton parish records show two John Goddards born in 1753. The father of one of them was William Goddard. There were two William Goddards, one of whom was the brother of Jonathan the father of the other John Goddard of 1753, My ggg-grandfather was a John Goddard born in 1753. I thus have two candidates for ggg-grandfather, 3 for gggg-grandfather and 2 for ggggg-grandfather. Any system which conflates the two entities, the genealogical role and the historical individual recorded in the registers is powerless to record this situation properly. -- 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

Robert Melson wrote: > Out of curiosity, what would you suggest replace the gedcom I thought he was asking for us to suggest what should. > "standard"? Is the problem so much with the standard or with > the programs that implement it? Both. But GEDCOM itself is not nearly as limited as most of the implementations of it. (Ironically, the worst I've come across comes from the same source as GEDCOM--PAF) I take it back--the worst I've seen came from a program that desperately took on the futile challenge not only of comprehending PAF's approach to SOURces, but tried to output SOURces PAF could understand WHILE adding to them stuff to make it's job easier on re-import. -- Wes Groleau Is it an on-line compliment to call someone a Net Wit ?

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

On Jul 17, 11:39 am, mels...@aragorn.rgmhome.net (Robert Melson) wrote: > In article <1184689853.767732.28...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > "the_vermina...@comcast.net" <the_vermina...@comcast.net> writes: > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 12:34 am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> 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. > > >> 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? > > >> If a guy marries his 14-year-old cousin as his fifth wife, GEDCOM has no > >> problem dealing with that kind of family. But it cannot handle the Brady > >> Bunch. > > >> Now I suppose you could defend GEDCOM by saying it is supposed to record > >> only genetic --- that is, biological --- relationships. And of course, > >> there are important scientific and especially medical uses for that kind of > >> information. But it is not really true that GEDCOM records biological > >> relationships. It presumes that the husband of a woman who bears a child is > >> the father of the child, and we know since there is now DNA testing that > >> assumption is untrue in a significant portion of cases. > > >> Which brings me to my point. I'd like to develop a family history system > >> that is as compatible with GEDCOM as possible (since it is, as I have said, > >> the de facto standard with tons of software applications), but with > >> extensions to handle many diverse kinds of families that exist both in > >> modern America and in many traditional cultures. > > >> So, I would be grateful for any pointers to existing software that handles > >> all families or suggestions for extensions. > > >> -- > >> Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner> > >> Countdown: 553 days to go. > >> Owing to massive spam from googlegroups, I do not see most posts from there. > > > Check out The Master Genealogist. > > > As an aside you should note that any program that depends on GEDCOM > > for anything other basic BMD info will have serious shortcomings > > depending on how the exporting and importing software follow the > > GEDCOM "standard" - which, imho, should be scrapped in its entirety. > > 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 > > -- > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - 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).

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". Cheryl

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?

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