TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-02 > 1013571207


From: "Cheri Casper" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Death to GEDCOM
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 19:41:05 -0800
References: <5.0.2.1.2.20020212143025.00ab8bb0@mail.cambridge.scr.slb.com> <3C6967F6.E827360@infoave.net> <001f01c1b426$1c4fbff0$9c6c323f@custom> <3C69D358.5319F14A@infoave.net>


Richard - Unless you wish to purchase every available software to do as you
indicate, you don't seem to have any other options than gedcom unless you
wish to spend your entire life developing carpal tunnel by reentering the
data. While I may wish to reenter data for my direct line, for collateral
lines and such replicating previously accomplished work is more effort than
I want to expend.

CheriC


----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Brogger" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: [TMG] Death to GEDCOM


Hi Cheri,

I didn't say we, I said everybody. As long as people are willing to
live with what the software developers throw in to transfer data,
everybody will get what is available, GEDCOM. I do not see this as a
GEDCOM problem. As Lee pointed out, GEDCOM was developed for a
specific purpose and meets those needs.

If users find ways to work around the problem, what is the incentive
for software developers? IMO, it is not up to the LDS to meet the
needs of software developers. It is up to the software developers to
meet the needs of the buyers. If a XYZ user wants to import data
produced by a ABC user, the XYZ user needs to yell at the developer of
XYZ. ABC, XYZ and every developer in between needs to find the cure
and they will IF enough people stop getting by with whatever the
developers decide to throw in with their products.

It is not up to Wholly Genes to provide the fix for the shortcomings
of every other genealogy product. However, I would like to see a WG
product that was just the basics and very easy to use. Then WG would
control the import and export between the simple product that anyone
can use and the best product.

As you, Bob and others have pointed out, TMG is not best for everyone.
Just as a car maker produces different makes and models to meet the of
the consumers, I would like to see WG produce a broader range but
still compatible for data exchange. The simple model would not have
the features of TMG so witnesses, rolls and whatever may not be usable
but what is usable would be properly imported.

If a person learns how to drive a stripped down Chevy model, that
knowledge applies to a Caddy. They may have to learn more but it is
added knowledge, not different knowledge. If the Chevy driver attempts
to switch to a British model that drives from the opposite side, that
might be closer to the switch from XYZ to TMG. You have to unlearn old
methods and learn new methods. Well someone is making that switch, I
would not want to be their issuer. They are an accident looking for a
place to happen.

Sending a GEDCOM to a user when you have no idea what will happen on
import, is another accident looking for a place to happen. The best
way to avoid that accident is to avoid the cause. All of the basics
can be transferred via GEDCOM but that GEDCOM should be opened and
examined using the XYZ software. With both TMG and XYZ open, the
sender can validate the information and add, if at all possible,
information that is beyond the GEDCOM capabilities. Under those
conditions, the XYZ user will get a copy of the XYZ data that is just
as the sender intended it to be. I find it easier to send a SQZ that
they can open in FTST and *they* can figure out how to get the data
into their program, or they can buy TMG and have EXACTLY what I send
just by restoring the SQZ. If they prefer, I will send a text
document. It is their choice but GEDCOM is not an option.

Richard Brogger


Cheri Casper wrote:
>
> Richard Brogger wrote:
> Andy and I are sometimes on opposite sides of an issue but on this I
> tend to agree with him. The best thing that could happen to GEDCOM is
> that everyone stop using it. If that happened we might get something
> designed to a strong standard.
>
> Well, *we* can stop using gedcom. But I think this is to lose sight of
> the fact that among genealogists and family historians, TMG users are in
the
> minority. And, while the minority *may* stop using gedcom, that doesn't
> keep the *majority* from continuing to use it. As long as the majority
uses
> it (and as long as the LDS links gedcoms to their website), gedcom--good
or
> bad--will be a fact of life.
>
> CheriC
>
> ==== TMG Mailing List ====
> .

--
XXENDSXX
Richard Brogger


==== TMG Mailing List ====
.



This thread: