Subject: Re: GEDCOM as a database format
FLAPDOODLE!
Recent contributions on this SIG contain confusing, often argumentative,
rhetoric about genealogy
and GEDCOMs ...
Please, gurus all: it would really help
IF you would use a spell check (e.g. the subject line error) and edit
messages;
IF you would use English without descent into jargon (which has as many
dialects as there are discussants), replacing gobbledygook with
plainspeak;
IF you would refrain from using self-serving arch comments (see how clever
i
am), sophisticated putdowns, and demeaning childish yah yah yahs (yer
mother
wears army boots, stoopid);
IF you would recommit to fostering an understanding of the technical
aspect of compugenealogy for non-experts as well as cognoscente;
IF you would continue to question, to respect suggestions, and to
re-evaluate;
IF you would admit that you might be wrong or have no answer;
Please:: more wise comments, less wise cracks and ... FLAPDOODLE ...
hava happy holiday
ken gompertz
gomog@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
10
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:49:15 -0500
From: "T.M. Sommers" <tms@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: GEDOM as a database format
To: gencmp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<4764760a$0$30082$470ef3ce@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
singhals wrote:
> JD <jd4x4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> singhals <singhals@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>> news:HY-dnZWMyuQFNP_anZ2dnUVZ_sytnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> JD <jd4x4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>
>>>> Certainly everyone can agree on items such as Name, Date, Source,
>>>> Notes, Comments, etc.
>>>> Yes??
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> When you say "No." are you saying that there is a disagreement about
>> the usefulness of these items, or the labels that I used to describe
>> them?
>
> Neither. I'm saying that there is no general agreement as to the
> appropriate content of a field with nearly any label at all.
>
> Name: should this contain the name on the birth certificate, the name on
> the marriage license, or the name by which the individual was known?
Yes. GEDCOM allows multiple names.
> Date: the date of the event as re****ted, or the date of the re****t of
> the event? Is it dd MMM yyyy or yyyy mm dd or mm dd yyyy?
GEDCOM says day month year.
> Whose
> calendar are we using?
GEDCOM allows you to specify your calendar.
> Source: you mean, where did _I_ get the info or where the info
originate?
That's a semantic issue, not a syntactic one, but I believe the
former is the scholarly standard, with a note citing the source's
source.
> "Notes": Many of us feel "NOTES" is the proper place to put source
> citations,
That's what the SOUR tag is for.
> as well as narrative about the person or family group.
> Others feel "NOTES" should be confined to check lists of things that
> need checking/doing/researching on this person.
The NOTE tag can be used for anything.
> Others feel that
> "NOTES" are the only place to put details of physical descriptions and
> the like.
That's what the DSCR tag is for.
> SOME other folk call some of those COMMENTS instead of NOTES.
Call it what you want, the tag is NOTE.
> So long as those definitions are all in play, then enforced
> standardization is impossible and probably undesirable. Worse, once
> there is somesort of enforced standardization, a certain number of
> people (probably including me) will spend enormous amounts of time
> cir***venting the requirements, for the perfectly valid reason: I don't
> like to do it that way. As a lagniappe, we can then proceed to foul up
> YOUR system.
No standard, on any subject, will be 100% agreeable to everyone.
Someone will always find some part or other "wrong". However,
if we want to work and communicate with each other, we have to
use standards, so some compromise is required. Take spelling.
If you insist on spelling words the way you think is proper, you
have only yourself to blame if no one understands or even reads
what you ruheet.
--
Thomas M. Sommers -- tms@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- AB2SB
|
