GENMSC-L Archives

Archiver > GENMSC > 2007-07 > 1184832618


From: Peter J Seymour <>
Subject: Re: Beyond GEDCOM
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:13:07 +0100
References: <slrnf9ol6e.cvf.usenet@goodwill.larseighner.com><Yxtni.90$r21.86@newsfe6-win.ntli.net><f7n5g1$pji$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <f7n5g1$pji$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>


Peter J Seymour wrote:
> 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
>> import and export GEDCOM files.
>>
>>> As you might expect, GEDCOM does not allow you to enter a family
>>> created by
>>> same-sex 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 relationship, 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
>> relationship.
>>
>> 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-sex 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-sex 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-sex marraige" is called a "civil
> union" which avoids the inappropriate use of the word marriage.

Oops, I think I meant "civil partnership"

> "Marriage" in this context may be defined as a male-female partnership
> regulating the ownership of property and also usually involving the
> begetting and raising of children. A same-sex partnership simply can't
> do the latter part. It may have relevance to genealogy, but it is on a
> lesser scale of importance than marriage.
>
> Peter

This thread: