From: Sylvain P. <sy...@cl...> - 2004-07-10 16:44:35
|
----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Allingham" <dal...@us...> To: "Steve Hall" <dig...@mi...> Cc: "Alex Roitman" <sh...@al...>; <gra...@li...> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 4:47 AM Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] Re: progress report and a question > I believe the GEDCOM is a public standard, but not an open standard - > meaning that it is owned by the LDS church. > So long we can use I feel OK taking in consideration that LDS support it ( not recently it seems that the transition from 5.5 to 6.0 is heavy) > Actually, you do, even if you don't know it. Does the internal model > support multiple names, alternate birth dates, alternate calendars, and > multiple notes? Does it support alternate relationships between children > (adopted, birth, etc.)? > definitely yes, you will find details by an accurate reading of the rules > Just as an example, the GEDCOM model does not allow you to say that Jane > and John are married, and the family includes Mary, who is the birth > child of Jane and the adopted child of John. The above is narrative, suitable for human understanding but I do not imagine what kind of analysis a programm could perform when genealogically minded Gedcom will say Jane et John married, Mary child of Jane , Mary adopted by John. To clarify a bit more you could use multiple FAMC, the first with genetic type yo the mother and the second for adoption to the adopter father. I believe that genealogical soft has not the capability for more than one tree. The fact is similar to multiple names and some times for multiple notes or medias > > (This, by the way, is one of the problems importing and exporting to and > from GEDCOM, and why GEDCOM is a lousy storage format). I disagree completely. Gedcom is like the rules say and is not bad itself. It works like planified. That is a method for transfering nothing more. In no way it is a data model. You can not say gedcom is bad because it does not use your own model. The responsability is assumed by the programmer to adjust, adapt, translate ... and all necessary job I accept the trend that gedcom could be improved, of course, but to day the major quality is its existence. That is the only way for data exchange and widely used. At least one programm uses gedcom as storage format for all the functions. Everything run rather well and interface for the user is conventional as a typical genealogic product I only wish to avoid confusion between format and model I use gramps .8 for test and will update soon for latest improvements.( Specially the move from XML to Data Base which demonstrates that gedcom has no concern with format ) congratulations and thanks to the whole gramps team > > > Well, since I'm the author of the python GEDCOM routines, I guess the > answer is that I don't really have anything to start from. I've been > debugging things as they come in, but I don't keep user's GEDCOM files > (privacy issues). > |