On the subject of GEDCOM I know people think that GEDCOM 6 will be the answer but I think it will take a while before we have a GEDCOM 6 standard since we have not agreed on a data model for genealogy yet.
I would like to see a minor revision of the current GEDCOM 5.5 that clarifies some fuzziness. Then have a clearing process that certifies the software to be GEDCOM 5.5 compliant. Most of the problem with GEDCOM 5.5 export import is caused by software implementations that does not fully support pure (with no extensions) GEDCOM 5.5.
The tests can be don like this you have some "standard" GEDCOM files that is imported then you do a change to one or more of the data in the program and export the result as a GEDCOM file and compare the input and output file.
Sven-Ove
At 05:00 AM 6/15/04, you wrote:
John, As a "background lurker" I have been following this discusion of the GEDcom and must completely agree with you the the GEDcom is a necessary evil. It is an accepted way for various programs to communicate, abet not perfectly. If we add or subtract from the "standard" GEDcom there will be problems. And one thing this world does not need is more problems. I do not see the necessity for a middle name with the AKA, prefix and suffix, and the ability to put more than one name on a line. To change Legacy in that manner would not be wise. Barb --- "John R. Bayle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lee Irons wrote: > > > GEDCOMs are the genealogy software industry's > answer to software > developers > > getting along with each other. > > > > NOT! > > And similar attacks on the GEDCOM standard. I > wonder if Lee subsequently > read > Terry Foxcraft's posting where he/she wrote: > > > I'm importing some data from Generations into > Legacy (more on that later) > > and I noticed a bug with importing sources from > Gedcom. > > Does Legacy import Generations' or FTM's files > directly? Not to my > knowlege. > Thus if someone wants to change from one Gen program > to another, they NEED > GEDCOM to get the data out of their old program into > their new, unless of > course > they want to retype all their information over again > into the new gen > program. > > I use three different Gen programs, and use GEDCOM > to move data between > them. I'm also the only one in my family using > Legacy. The cousins and > brother-in-law > I share research with use FTM. They don't want to > learn another gen > program. > I don't want to antagonize them by insisting on them > changing their gen > program, > or at least learning to use a new one. > > I'm very much aware of GEDCOM's limitations. I very > well know that it is > very > far from perfect. But it IS usable and does provide > a workable means of > exchanging > large amounts of genealogy data quickly. I've also > found that some > relatively > simple programming can often reduce the amount of > errors in a GEDCOM > "transmission" by a very great amount. > > I am one (I believe the first one) who disagreed > with Kristian about the > desireability > of having a "Middle Name" field added to the current > name structure, partly > on the basis > of incompatibility with GEDCOM. As Kristian has > written he had a rebuttal > about > using user defined tags. My re-rebuttal was that it > is precisely at those > user defined > tags that the wheels begin to come off of the GEDCOM > data transfer > mechanism. > > I believe Kristian and I have agreed to disagree at > this point. > > The GEDCOM standard does have 8 pieces of what they > call the > "Personal_Name_Structure" Legacy use 4 of the 6 > items that are defined to > be > used for pieces of a name. The other two parts of > the name structure are > the > source citation (which Legacy already uses) and a > Note sub-structure which > Legacy does not use. None of the 6 items defined to > be part of the name > are "Middle" name. However, there is a NICKNAME > field. Now the > Nickname field could be used as a "Middle name" or > as a Farm name, besides > being used as a nickname. > Or the "Notes structure" could be implemented by > legacy and then that > Notes structure could be used for a variety of > things, including my > "unstructured name" and/or the > call-it-what-you-want-to name. > > My view of the situation is that no matter how many > fields are in the name > structure, someone will want another. So ideally > Legacy could implement > the Full name structure of the GEDCOM standard, > adding two more > pieces to the structure, and a Notes sub-structure > which would allow a > user to put practically anything into the Name > Structure. The two more > pieces would cut down the number of users wanting to > add another piece, > while the notes sub-structure would allow folks to > do whatever they d--n > well pleased! > > > jr > > Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found > at: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > > To find past messages, please go to our searchable > archives at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/ > > To unsubscribe please visit: > http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp >
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/
To unsubscribe please visit: http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/
To unsubscribe please visit: http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp
