On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Henry F. Brownlee wrote: >On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 21:20:21 GMT, "D. Stussy" <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote: >>I would find BOTH of those wrong, as it does not indicate the COUNTRY. >>Locations in the USA MUST SAY SO to be correct. > >Perhaps for those who do not live in the USA. But for those of us who do, it >is a given. And I doubt even those in Great Britain (oops - the UK) will >think that New Orleans, Orleans, Louisiana is other than in the USA. >But then, I have been wrong once before. 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.

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. Cheryl

On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 20:55:11 -0500, Singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: >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. > >Cheryl Et moi, aussi, Cher (yl) ! <g> Henry

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.....).

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. Cheryl

In relation to discussion of places that are now "owned" differently to when ancestor lived - Louisiana was French etc now USA Then I think it a good idea to record all that ownership as part of providing a historical background anyway. If I was a future descendant I would most sure want to know that.......... Biggest problem I have is wehn I find a Person on web and there is no location or date in the data shown - seems pointless - I have no idea if I have an interest... Ron Lankshear.... Sydney Aust