From: Richard G. <rag...@sp...> - 2009-05-14 17:25:01
|
It is a nightmare. I have invested thousands of hours into researching and recording genealogical histories. To me, the value of that research far exceeds the value of any combination of expedience, data model purity, shifting technologies or devotion to a platform. Open source software and standards such as XML sound like an ideal protection for that research. But when a situation such as this arises, it appears that the program is considered more important than the data it should safeguard. From a genealogist perspective, this creates a serious trust issue with the project. While some research is reproducible, some is irreplaceable. I can't go back and re-interview my now deceased grandfather. A genealogical record keeping system encourages me to record my chicken scratch notes into structured form. But if very few years of inactivity renders the data unusable, why bother? I have the technical capacity to transfer all of my databases through the tortured steps suggested to migrate from 1.x to 3.x. I have chosen not to. I have used 3.x for some quick projects that ended with export to other systems. It has some valuable and innovative features. It is an impressive work in its own right. However, if the core development process does not include a recognition of the project's roles and responsibilities in the preservation of the data, the program will not be given the role of my permanent historian. I like GRAMPS, but this is a seriously detrimental issue. -Richard Duncan Lithgow wrote: > That looks like a nightmare for a user to fix! Is there no better way? > > Duncan |