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

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