APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2004-08 > 1092798075


From: Bob Velke <>
Subject: RE: [APG] Citations and facts
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:01:15 -0400
References: <6.0.1.1.2.20040817153200.02b0dec0@mail.whollygenes.com><000001c484b0$a2784cc0$0300a8c0@doctorwho>
In-Reply-To: <000001c484b0$a2784cc0$0300a8c0@doctorwho>


Jerry said:

>There is some degree of subjectivity in any indirect measurement scheme. As
>I mentioned, the choices I listed previously are defined more precisely
>using supplemental guidelines (for brevity not detailed there).

Yes, but your classifications beg for misinterpretation. In the absence of
your guidelines for reference (i.e., in the data itself), the typical user
will think that he has a sense for what "good," "average," and "poor" mean
and that may bear little resemblance to your definitions of those
terms. In a similar absence of guidelines, the GEDCOM scale (0-3) leaves
no doubt that the guidelines are needed in order to properly interpret the
values. In the meantime, it merely communicates their ordinal values (3 is
more than 2, 2 is more than 1) which is at least accurate.

So unless someone can come up with a subjective scale which is unambiguous
and self-explanatory on its face (and I doubt it), a nominal or ordinal one
seems most appropriate to me.

>How is "fidelity" any more objective than "clarity"?

Um, one is "original" vs "photocopy" vs "transcript," etc. The other is
"high" vs "medium" vs "low." The latter seems quite a bit more subjective
to me.

>The problem with an aggregate value like surety is that a reader has no idea
>what it is composed of or how it was arrived at.

Right. So having category names which falsely suggest that they are
self-explanatory discourages one from even seeking their definitions.

>I don't wish to detract from a researcher's artfulness, but analysis of
>evidence seems like an area that needs a logical, quantitative
>("scientific") approach like the one Elizabeth and I are suggesting.

I may be wrong but I don't hear Elizabeth arguing against subjective
evaluations provided that her concerns for scientific classifications are
also met. That's my position too.

>I don't think GEDCOM is a guiding light in this area, nor should we shrug
>our shoulders and resign ourselves to GEDCOM. You know that I (and others)
>are developing alternatives to GEDCOM that have fewer restrictions.

As many here know, I'm no fan of GEDCOM. But GEDCOM is a reality and it is
well entrenched. Nobody has worked harder than I to document the many
failings of GEDCOM, to prod the LDS to improve it, or to develop
alternatives - and I will continue to do so. But if we're concerned about
the realistic prospects of communicating genealogical data (?), then it is
a mistake to dismiss the current capabilities of GEDCOM or to think that
the industry will embrace any other alternative now or in the foreseeable
future. Sad but true.

>As I read it, the GEDCOM 5.5 spec defines certainty values of 0-3 and
>provides relatively clear definitions of them. If I'm not mistaken
>'certainty' and 'surety' are one in the same, so negative surety values
>already deviate from GEDCOM don't they?

Yes, they do. Like many other important data types that are supported by
TMG but not by GEDCOM, there's no way to transfer negative surety. But
insofar as the capability does exist in GEDCOM (i.e., 0-3), we use it
because it is better than nothing.

Bob Velke
Wholly Genes Software


This thread: