mojaveg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Everett M. Greene) wrote:
> JD <jd4x4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>verizon.net> writes:
>> Ian Goddard <goddai01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> > In practice it seems that the GEDCOM type of model has
>> > influenced genealogical S/W to the extent that there doesn't
>> > seem to be any real advance on it.
>>
>> Again, one of the problems coming out of GEDCOM is that the DATA is
>> getting mixed with the model. The data is and will always be what it
>> is, right? The differences are in how we each use it and think of it,
>> imo.
>
> All this discussion is interesting (and we hope useful), but
> could there be some elaboration on the above points? It would
> seem that genealogical info describes a network of parents
> to/from children with nets spliced/joined by marriages. How
> does one "improve" on this "model"?
>
Not just this particular "model", because there are others that use the
same core data. I'm thinking that since many "data babies" get thrown
out with "genealogy", "family history", and who knows what other bath
water every day that goes by which baths are taken... that at least a
mechanism to capture and improve the data sets with machines is in
order.
And, I see "XML" as being a help with that. Now, "XML" covers a LOT of
ground, not just a "data model", or a "standard", or even a "language"..
it's strength lies in smart use of it together in the correct
ever-expanding implementation of all of these aspects, imo. Data that's
taggged in at least a basic improved fa****on every day could be of use.
Also, apps for genealogy should help with the exchanges and tagging at
least in the background (like in the date example & my scenario in the
previous post) if they were XML compliant.
Hope this makes a little sense.. I'm late for a task & in a rush!
|
