In article <po5r9351dijbfha6jo0vafdfskfg4ck59e@4ax.com>, Denis Beauregard <denis.b-at-francogene.com@fr.invalid> writes: > On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 03:55:19 GMT, melsonr@aragorn.rgmhome.net (Robert > Melson) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing: > >>In article <iuvq93105be5ochbsi73dh7u0rforplirg@4ax.com>, >> Denis Beauregard <denis.b-at-francogene.com@fr.invalid> writes: >>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 02:07:01 GMT, melsonr@aragorn.rgmhome.net (Robert >>> Melson) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing: >>> >>>>As I understand it, though, XML permits you to add/delete >>>>entities locally while still preserving the "universal" >>>>entities defined elsewhere. If that's true, then you >>>>should be able to add a "hippie marriage" entity in your >>>>local DTD that would satisfy your requirements. >>> >>> From a structural point of view, where is the difference >>> with GEDCOM ? >>> >>I'm not sure I can answer that question. Anything I think I >>know about XML comes from the O'Reilly "XML in a Nutshell" >>and is rusty as hell. (Hmmm, now I think of it, though, both >>V5.X and V6 are GEDCOM - the realization is different from one >>to the other, though.) > > But there is no structural big difference. I mean how you see it is > different (the syntax is different), but it is like more or less > comparing 2 languages. French and English are different, but there is > nothing you can say in one of them and not in the other. A proof is > that I think in French while I write this message in English. > > There is no semantic difference between > > 0 FAM > 1 HUSB > 1 WIFE > 1 MARR > 2 DATE > > and > > <fam> > <husb> </husb> > <wife> </wife> > <marr> > <date> </date> > </marr> > </fam> > > or > > <tribe> > <head> </head> > <staff> </staff> > <union> > <jour> </jour> > </union> > </tribe> > >>I think the major difference between 5 and 6, however, is not in >>the representation but in the entities included and how they're >>defined. I haven't really looked at the BNF definitions of >>the GED language, so I can't really tell you specifically how >>the two versions differ. >> >>The advantage of XML, though, as I understand it, is that there can >>be a centrally defined stylesheet which can be imported into the >>local environment and modified locally without affecting the base >>stylesheet. You could even, if I remember correctly, have multiple >>stylesheets - the base, a vendor version, an o/s specific version, >>one for your company and your personal version. In terms of the >>GED standard, you might have the central "standard" maintained at >>and by the LDS, a FTM version maintained by the vendor, and a >>local version you maintain yourself to fix problems you see in >>the other two. > > And what will that change ? The major problem in a standard to > exchange data is what will you do with the data your own database > doesn't know. Using a GEDCOM style structure or an XML style > structure is irrelevant. XML is more fashion, more 2007, while > GEDCOM is more 1980s or 1990s, but none of them will tell you by > itself what to do with the data your database can't process. > > IMO, GEDCOM 6 failed (it never made it) because it is not addressing > this major problem but is only cosmetical. > >>If there's anybody here who understands this, I'd love to see/hear >>what you have to say about the GED V.6 beta standard and what it >>will mean for us mere hackers. >> >>Bob Melson > > > Denis > In terms of the "language", the BNF specification is definitive. I haven't looked closely at that, so can't say what may have changed or in what way. I agree that "rendering" in language in XML seems to offer little advantage. But, if I'm not way off base, XML is a web-based system, meaning that, properly managed, changes to the core definitions will be transparent to all systems using the XML rendition. The same would be true if, say, FTM or TMG maintained and published their vendor-specific XML supplements to the core standard, at least insofar as users of those programs are concerned. The potential advantage I see in XML is that those supplements - or links to them - can be exported with your data, making the data more widely understood/usable. But I come back to a question I asked earlier. If there's so much dissatisfaction with GEDCOM v5.X and the LDS Church, why has there not been a movement to create or evolve a new standard on the part of the various vendors or genealogy organizations? For that matter, why hasn't a group of advanced, techie genealogy hobbyists gotten together to propose a new definition? If you use the open source software "movement" as an example, what's to prevent a bunch of amateurs donating their time to creating a new data exchange standard for genealogical data and the software to present it? Understand, please, I'm NOT a Mormon and am not defending them on the basis of religion. I do wonder, though, why, amid all the pissing and moaning about the crappy gedcom standard, there isn't some sort of concerted effort to changee it for the better. Bob Melson readable -- 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