JD <jd4x4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> 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!
The thing is, it doesn't explain what you're wanting it to
if someone doesn't already know what you mean by what you
say, if you see what I mean?
Cheryl
|
