On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Singhals wrote: >D. Stussy wrote: >> On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Singhals wrote: >> >D. Stussy wrote: >> >> It is NOT a "given" for any PUBLIC database sharing, nor should it be a >"given" except for the rare occasion that a database has NO PERSON with >NO EVENT outside the U.S. However, that still doesn't make its omission >correct. >> > >> >Most of us aren't creating a PUBLIC database, we're creating >> >private databases which we may (or may not) elect to share >> >publically. This makes a subtle difference in specs. >> >> Whether or not one intends to share publicly shouldn't make that much of a >> difference. If the database is still being shared privately among one's >> relatives, it should be self-explanatory and precise. Leaving off the country >> makes it less precise, and could also be confusing in some cases (e.g. Essex >> County for Massachusetts and for England share a town nameset - use a map and >> compare.....). > > >True as that is, > >1) I don't share my databases with my relatives because most of >my relatives don't have a computer, and those who do aren't >interested in the database or the research, only the printout of >the results. (They don't even want to see sources!) > >2) and ALL of them will assume that everyplace is in the US >unless I explicity say differently. More, if in instance #1 I say >this is in Springfield, whatever county, California, they will >*assume* that all following places are likewise there and if it >isn't I'll say so. > >Being aware that pre-computer genealogists often used such >labor/labour saving tricks on charts can save a newbie a lot of >grief, BTW. > >And this entire thread is one of the reasons GEDCOM Standards >aren't particularly "standard" for everyone. The connection is >left to the reader. You might not share your database, but if we are talking about the GEDCOM standard for place naming, then we ARE talking about the sharing of databases in general (that's what GEDCOM is for).

D. Stussy wrote: > You might not share your database, but if we are talking about the >GEDCOM I wasn't; nor was the thread. The key word in my sentence (deleted here) was _standard_. > standard for place naming, then we ARE talking about the sharing of databases > in general (that's what GEDCOM is for). Actually, no, it isn't. GEDCOM was proposed for that reason, but for reasons of economic clout, the development was largely at the instance of the LDS church *because* it was an easy way for LDS members to get the necessary parts of their data (name, date, place) out of the genealogy program and into the Temple system. And, for that to work properly, the format of the places has to go small to large (otherwise the IGI shows Chev* instead of Maryl). Non-LDS genealogists began using it to move data from this program to that, with the results we've discussed here before -- to wit, strange things happen to normal people. Cheryl