> "Wes Groleau" <groleau+news@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>> [a general complaint about GEDCOM with three specific examples]
Nigel Bufton wrote:
>[examples of GEDCOM that do what I said can't be done]
I guess I should have been clearer about what I was saying....
>> - No one can have more than one nickname.
> 0 INDI @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 1 NAME John /Jones/
> 2 NICK Jack
> 1 NAME
> 2 NICK Johnny
This is a workaround for the _better_ but technically prohibited
0 INDI @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
NAME Napoleon /Smith/
2 NICK Paul
2 NICK Nappy
>> - You can't get the date of death from one source and the place
>> from another. Every source applies to the whole event.
>
> 1 DEAT -- Not legal; DEAT must have either "N" or subrecords
> 1 SOUR @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 2 DATE 1/2/1234 -- Sorry, this is a date and place for the source,
> 2 PLAC Anywhere -- not a source for the date
> 3 SOUR @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sorry, GEDCOM spec disallows source at level three
>> - The fact that Joe is the child of Fred & Mary needs no evidence,
>> indeed, a source citation on a CHIL is not allowed.
>
> 0 INDI @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ...
> 1 FAMC @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 2 PEDI birth
> 3 NOTE There is a source for this
> 4 SOUR @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is a source for a note, not for the type of relation****p (PEDI)
nor for the relation****p itself (FAMC)
2. I said CHIL, not FAMC, but that's too nit-picky even for me, since
my objection applies to both.
3. GEDCOM doesn't allow a PEDI to have a subordinate NOTE, though it
_does_ allow a FAMC (but _not_ a CHIL) to have a subordinate NOTE
4. GEDCOM does not allow NOTEs to have SOURces.
When I said "GEDCOM" I was referring to the actual specified syntax,
and when I said "can't" I meant "can't do it in a way that's feasible
for automated processing."
It is a Good Thing that most genealogical programs violate some of the
unreasonable restrictions of GEDCOM. Indeed, for years, my genealogical
program was LifeLines, because it was the only one that had few enough
restrictions to suit me. And eventually, I switched to TextEdit because
I still felt I was too restricted. :-)
But the fact that they have to do that--and that all do it in
_different_ ways--is another flaw in the GEDCOM "standard."
Moreover, most of them also violate the spec by _preventing_
reasonable things that the spec allows.
Here's another VERY minor beef: no one can have more than one AFN.
After all, no two people will ever submit the same person to AF
and fail to do a merge, right? :-)
And of course this newsgroup has already thoroughly harangued the
topics of bigamy, homo***uality, and other "alternative lifestyles."
In keeping with the calendar (I'm in USA), I'm thankful that LDS
and others put so much work into it. But I wish it had received
more work before becoming so entrenched.
--
Wes Groleau
"Brigham Young agrees to confine himself to one woman,
if every member of Congress will do the same."
-- Weekly Republican, 1869
|
