GENBOX-L Archives

Archiver > GENBOX > 2005-02 > 1108751280

From: "Tom Morris" <>
Subject: RE: [GENBOX] Gedcom export of places
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:28:07 -0500
In-Reply-To: <>

> From: Geir Thorud [mailto:]
> But I don't understand
> why you seem to be against the FORM Place_hierarchy feature -

Ummmm, because the specification says not to use it?

> And if you don't include the ",,", how will the receiving
> program know that you want to store "Town xxx" in England as
> a town and not as a province?

It won't. GEDCOM 5.5 has no such concept as towns and provinces
and no amount of wishing or imagining will give it one.

It's just as easy to turn the question around and ask what
receiving programs and researchers will make of extra commas (",")
inserted into place names where they don't belong.

If my source says "Reading in the county of Berkshire" and I
encoded that as "Reading, Berkshire, England" but then when it
gets exported to GEDCOM, it becomes "Reading, Berkshire, , England"
readers are going to wonder what goes in the blank space.

You obviously have a strong mental model of how this should all
work, but it's not a model which is a) written down in a
specification or b) shared by the worldwide genealogical research
community. These are important things for any kind of meaningful
genealogical data interchange.

> I agree that improvements in Gedcom are needed, but that
> should not prevent us from trying to handle what is already
> there, properly.

I agree, but what is there today is that a place name consists
of a comma-separated list of names. Nothing more.


This thread: