Lars Eighner wrote: > 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. > And of course then you'll run into situations where the data-entry human dithers and shivers and agonizes over what to call his sibling's house-mate: there's no legal marriage, so "Spouse" is wrong; the two are opposite sexes so "Partner" seems wrong (or they're not opposite sexes so "Partner" seems a bit too precise); "Companion" sounds like a pet dawg and isn't strong enough; "mate" sounds cold; "boy-toy" and "old fool's plaything" won't hack it with the great-aunts ... This is much like a discussion about the use of the word "died" in the sentence, "George died on the 3rd of September 1805". In one newspaper, on one single day, I found 27 different phrases used to replace "died". The next day I found 6 different instances, and on the day after than 9 more. The programmer simply cannot foresee all the conceivable variations on any given word such as Birth, Death, marriage, spouse, because if he even tries, the program will very rapidly become (as said in one of the Star Trek movies) the one that swallowed Jupiter. IMO Cheryl