I spent a couple of days on the web, visiting FHISO and GedcomX, and Cyndi's List, and came to the conclusion that there is no standard. Some might think that EE is a standard, but if it were, I would think that it would be on the FHISO or GedcomX short list, and I know it's not.I can't read Benny's mind, so I don't think I'd say that it's too soon to implement EE templates. Several other similar programs already have. I *have* said, so often that I'm getting tired of it, that EE is US-centric and that others need to point us to their national standards if such exist. Nobody has, which is leading me to think that those standards exist only in the US.Thanks to a link on Cyndi's List, I found a better way. It's called Simple Citations, has just a few templates, and contrary to EE it is consistent w.r.t. the use of attributes. I'm trying to get in touch with the author Jeff La Marca. His templates are free, but I'd like to get in touch anyway.
Treat EE's templates as examples. Understand what are the principles underlying those examples (which are explained in the first two chapters) and work out similar examples for the record types that you use. If your country has no genealogy journals, look at history journals and find out what citation style they use. Modify your examples to meet and extend those citation styles just as Mills extended CMS. Write it up on a website or blog and get your local genealogy society to review it. Adjust as necessary to satisfy their criticism, then get them to adopt the result. Write templates and add them to Gramps.
http://www.simplecitation and s.com/
When I find a need to expand these to support local sources, I will do that later. Most important for me now is to give myself and fellow Gramps users an alternative that I think is both easy to use and consistent. The latter is important to me, because a small set of attributes, used in a consistent way, is a key factor in data exchange.I think the above is sound, unlike EE, which violates all principles of what I call sound. First is the enormous lack of consistency, second the fact that like Tamura Jones says, you need a wizard to find the right template:
A template system will be helpful for them so long as it's based on sound genealogical research principles. For the cases where EE applies, we can be confident that we're supplying sound advice. I think that for any other cases that we support we need to be just as sure that the advice is also sound.
As far as I'm concerned the idea of templates is good, but EE is not the right basis, not even for experts like my fellow countryman Tamura Jones, nor for Randy Seaver for that matter.
As a consequence, I think that the current implementation of EE based attributes must be made completely optional in such a way that I will be able to run Gramps 4.1 without seeing any of ESM messy attributes ever. I'm already looking at the code to figure out how alternative templates can be added.
Simple Citations are my first choice for that.