On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 03:55:19 GMT, melsonr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Robert
Melson) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:
>In article <iuvq93105be5ochbsi73dh7u0rforplirg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Denis Beauregard <denis.b-at-francogene.com@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 02:07:01 GMT, melsonr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Robert
>> Melson) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:
>>
>>>As I understand it, though, XML permits you to add/delete
>>>entities locally while still preserving the "universal"
>>>entities defined elsewhere. If that's true, then you
>>>should be able to add a "hippie marriage" entity in your
>>>local DTD that would satisfy your requirements.
>>
>> From a structural point of view, where is the difference
>> with GEDCOM ?
>>
>I'm not sure I can answer that question. Anything I think I
>know about XML comes from the O'Reilly "XML in a Nutshell"
>and is rusty as hell. (Hmmm, now I think of it, though, both
>V5.X and V6 are GEDCOM - the realization is different from one
>to the other, though.)
But there is no structural big difference. I mean how you see it is
different (the syntax is different), but it is like more or less
comparing 2 languages. French and English are different, but there is
nothing you can say in one of them and not in the other. A proof is
that I think in French while I write this message in English.
There is no semantic difference between
0 FAM
1 HUSB
1 WIFE
1 MARR
2 DATE
and
<fam>
<husb> </husb>
<wife> </wife>
<marr>
<date> </date>
</marr>
</fam>
or
<tribe>
<head> </head>
<staff> </staff>
<union>
<jour> </jour>
</union>
</tribe>
>I think the major difference between 5 and 6, however, is not in
>the representation but in the entities included and how they're
>defined. I haven't really looked at the BNF definitions of
>the GED language, so I can't really tell you specifically how
>the two versions differ.
>
>The advantage of XML, though, as I understand it, is that there can
>be a centrally defined stylesheet which can be im****ted into the
>local environment and modified locally without affecting the base
>stylesheet. You could even, if I remember correctly, have multiple
>stylesheets - the base, a vendor version, an o/s specific version,
>one for your company and your personal version. In terms of the
>GED standard, you might have the central "standard" maintained at
>and by the LDS, a FTM version maintained by the vendor, and a
>local version you maintain yourself to fix problems you see in
>the other two.
And what will that change ? The major problem in a standard to
exchange data is what will you do with the data your own database
doesn't know. Using a GEDCOM style structure or an XML style
structure is irrelevant. XML is more fa****on, more 2007, while
GEDCOM is more 1980s or 1990s, but none of them will tell you by
itself what to do with the data your database can't process.
IMO, GEDCOM 6 failed (it never made it) because it is not addressing
this major problem but is only cosmetical.
>If there's anybody here who understands this, I'd love to see/hear
>what you have to say about the GED V.6 beta standard and what it
>will mean for us mere hackers.
>
>Bob Melson
Denis
|
