From: Enno B. <enn...@gm...> - 2012-06-16 19:29:41
|
Hi, > Actually, that's getting revisited. See > https://github.com/FamilySearch/gedcomx/issues/134 -- and join the > fun, even if only to +1 some of the suggestions. The more folks who > advocate for expanding beyond a pure conclusion model the more likely > Ryan is to add the necessary features. Well, it cost me a few days to understand what the discussion is about, and I'm glad you pointed this out. I think I'm somewhere between John and Tom w.r.t. persona's, but there's so much in the discussion that I hardly know where to add that +1. > We actually don't stray too far from GEDCOM in most places, being > careful to create structures that can be represented in GEDCOM, if > possible. But as soon as there is a generally agreed upon replacement, > then we can use that as our primary constraint, and hopefully it can > be extended. Sounds sensible, and I sincerely hope that shared events can be introduced in Gramps some time. That's because I have always thought that it's strange that most software still thinks that all events are individual. I mean, most births list at least two known persons, and most certificates list three or more, and the same goes for death certificates which very often mention spouses. And for me the most annoying single person event is residence, since that one is also very often about whole family groups, like censuses. And IMO, most of this can probably be part of GEPS 024: http://www.gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=GEPS_024:_Certificates At the moment, I'm a little tired though, so I hope to pick things up a little later. cheers, Enno |