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