Your comments are valid when we're talking about
sharing genealogy data among cousins.
However, when people transcribe and index records, the first
step for the researcher is to find the records.
GEDCOM is a suitable format for storing genealogical indices
so researchers will find out where somebody went.
Tom Alciere
Hudson, New Hamp****re
Quoting gencmp-request@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
7
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:31:16 GMT
From: Wes Groleau <groleau+news@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject: Re: Here's a better plan
To: gencmp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<ELmXk.1318$us6.289@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Ian Goddard wrote:
> Let's start by devising a better data structure than GEDCOM.
>
> .... GEDCOM is set up to handle a
> particular name format used in one culture at one time. You're using it
> to handle stuff from all over the world and over a time duration of at
> least a millennium.
That's not it's only flaw, but it's like Windows or VHS or C++
Sure, there are far better available, but vendors won't sell
what few customers will buy. And customers won't buy what
few vendors will sell. Splice loop here.
My beefs with GEDCOM are many. How about some little ones:
- No one can have more than one nickname.
- You can't get the date of death from one source and the place
from another. Every source applies to the whole event.
- The fact that Joe is the child of Fred & Mary needs no evidence,
indeed, a source citation on a CHIL is not allowed.
And yet, the genealogical world makes it hard for me to use anything
else. I guess I can be thankful it's not worse.
> Yes, there would be good value in sites like this but we need a far
> better foundation on which to build them.
Sites like what? Are you responding to his .sig ?
--
Wes Groleau
--
Check for matching lines on http://GEDCOMindex.com
and
http://BrideIndex.info
|
