In article <po5r9351dijbfha6jo0vafdfskfg4ck59e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Denis Beauregard <denis.b-at-francogene.com@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> 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
>
In terms of the "language", the BNF specification is
definitive. I haven't looked closely at that, so can't
say what may have changed or in what way.
I agree that "rendering" in language in XML seems to offer
little advantage. But, if I'm not way off base, XML is a
web-based system, meaning that, properly managed, changes to
the core definitions will be transparent to all systems using
the XML rendition. The same would be true if, say, FTM or TMG
maintained and published their vendor-specific XML supplements
to the core standard, at least insofar as users of those programs
are concerned. The potential advantage I see in XML is that
those supplements - or links to them - can be ex****ted with your
data, making the data more widely understood/usable.
But I come back to a question I asked earlier. If there's so much
dissatisfaction with GEDCOM v5.X and the LDS Church, why has there
not been a movement to create or evolve a new standard on the part
of the various vendors or genealogy organizations? For that matter,
why hasn't a group of advanced, techie genealogy hobbyists gotten
together to propose a new definition? If you use the open source
software "movement" as an example, what's to prevent a bunch of
amateurs donating their time to creating a new data exchange
standard for genealogical data and the software to present it?
Understand, please, I'm NOT a Mormon and am not defending them
on the basis of religion. I do wonder, though, why, amid all the
pissing and moaning about the crappy gedcom standard, there isn't
some sort of concerted effort to changee it for the better.
Bob Melson
readable
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
"People unfit for freedom---who cannot do much with it---are
hungry for power." ---Eric Hoffer
|
