David Harper wrote:
> Lars Eighner wrote:
>
>> Here is the problem: GEDCOM has become the de facto standard for
family
>> history and geneology data. And the problem with that is that the
>> Mormons
>> own GEDCOM and thus it is rife with built-in religious limitations.
>
>
> That's an unfair characterisation of both the Mormons and of the GEDCOM
> format, in my view.
>
> Whatever you may think of the LDS Church, the genealogy community has
> much to thank them for. Without them, a huge amount of genealogical
> data would be locked away in government archives instead of available
> for us to use.
>
> And this was true even before the rise of the Internet. The LDS Church
> paid to have priceless resources such as British census returns copied
> onto microfilm, and their family history centres were open to everyone.
>
> For the record, incidentally, I'm not a member of the LDS Church, or
> indeed any church. I'm just an amateur genealogist whose research in
> the 1980s wouldn't have got very far, were it not for the resources
> provided by the Mormons.
>
> As to the GEDCOM format, it originated with the LDS Church, and they
> maintain the standard, but at least it is an open standard that any
> developer of genealogy software can use without having to pay a licence
> fee or sign a non-disclosure agreement.
>
> That very openness is why every major piece of genealogy software can
> im****t and ex****t GEDCOM files.
>
>> As you might expect, GEDCOM does not allow you to enter a family
>> created by
>> same-*** marriage or civil unions even where they are lawful. But
>> there are
>> other limitations. For example, in GEDCOM 5.xx, an adopted child does
>> not
>> belong to his family. When he looks up his family in a
GEDCOM-compliant
>> file, he is not there. How needlessly hurtful is that?
>
>
> There are three separate issues here.
>
> First, adoption. The GEDCOM 5.5 standard includes two different ways to
> specify an adoptive relation****p, as well as providing a way to indicate
> both the adoptive family and the biological family of an individual. It
> even includes a way to describe a foster-family relation****p.
>
> So, it is plain wrong to imply that an adopted child cannot be linked to
> both his adoptive family and his birth family in a GEDCOM file,
> provided, of course, that his birth family is known.
>
> Second, civil unions. There is no reason why a civil union between a
> man and a woman cannot be represented in a GEDCOM file. If you do not
> wish to record it as a marriage, that's fine. GEDCOM provides a generic
> event tag which can be used to describe all manner of events outside
> those specifically catered for. You can add a civil union ceremony via
> that route, if your genealogy application is smart enough.
>
> Finally, same-*** marriages. Okay, you have a point here. GEDCOM
> defines a family unit to be a husband and a wife, plus children.
>
> That's pretty much the only type of family unit you'll encounter in
> historical records, which makes up most of the data in the vast majority
> of GEDCOM files.
>
> Same-*** marriage is still a very new phenomenon, and the GEDCOM
> standard hasn't caught up with the changing zeitgeist. Then again,
> neither have the governments of most of the countries of the world, and
> to be frank, I consider that to be a greater injustice than the fact
> that the GEDCOM standard doesn't allow it.
>
> David Harper
> Cambridge, England
Just one quibble: In the UK "same-*** marraige" is called a "civil
union" which avoids the inappropriate use of the word marriage.
"Marriage" in this context may be defined as a male-female partner****p
regulating the owner****p of property and also usually involving the
begetting and raising of children. A same-*** partner****p simply can't
do the latter part. It may have relevance to genealogy, but it is on a
lesser scale of im****tance than marriage.
Peter
|
