GENMSC-L Archives

Archiver > GENMSC > 2007-07 > 1184711682


From: Ian Goddard <>
Subject: Re: Beyond GEDCOM
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:34:42 +0100
References: <slrnf9ol6e.cvf.usenet@goodwill.larseighner.com><1184689853.767732.28500@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com><2h6ni.9164$zA4.5373@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>


Robert Melson wrote:


>
> Out of curiosity, what would you suggest replace the gedcom
> "standard"? Is the problem so much with the standard or with
> the programs that implement it? As Micro$oft and Oracle have
> amply proved, a standard exists as a standard only so long as
> the players consider themselves bound by it; once the standard
> is breached it becomes meaningless.
>
> Bob Melson
>
>

Well, for a start I'd want it to be based on XML. That would mean that the
standard could be extended as required. An example of such extension would
be the ability to deal with modern surnames, various patronymic systems and
the various styles of epithet which evolved into surnames.

I'd also want it to handle the records of individuals separate from their
genealogical roles. To illustrate, Kirkburton parish records show two John
Goddards born in 1753. The father of one of them was William Goddard.
There were two William Goddards, one of whom was the brother of Jonathan
the father of the other John Goddard of 1753, My ggg-grandfather was a John
Goddard born in 1753. I thus have two candidates for ggg-grandfather, 3
for gggg-grandfather and 2 for ggggg-grandfather. Any system which
conflates the two entities, the genealogical role and the historical
individual recorded in the registers is powerless to record this situation
properly.

--
Ian Goddard

Hotmail is for the benefit of spammers. The email address that I actually
read is igoddard and that's at nildram dot co dot uk

This thread: