tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post4430012160889603984..comments2024-03-21T19:08:05.737-07:00Comments on Genealogy's Star: GEDCOM or not to GEDCOM, that is the question James Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-61827456812526015182015-03-01T10:27:11.675-07:002015-03-01T10:27:11.675-07:00The difference between bad programming the way GED...The difference between bad programming the way GEDCOM is used is lost on the average genealogy database users. My intention was to point out the results of the GEDCOM standard, not particularly comment on the issue of some sort of standard. I would have to disagree with your characterization of what was done or not done by the LDS Church. The shift away from the GEDCOM standard was more a natural response to changing conditions rather than some kind of deliberate conspiracy. James Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-84270653520581546272015-03-01T09:21:39.898-07:002015-03-01T09:21:39.898-07:00Re your cons:
1. "a considerable amount of th...Re your cons:<br />1. "a considerable amount of the existing file data may be lost" - this is true, but that is an indictment of poor programming, not the GEDCOM standard, and would apply to modern APIs, etc.<br /><br />2. "Using GEDCOM facilitates the transfer of large, unsupported, unsourced and inaccurate data files." Again, this is not an issue with the standard, this is how the standard is used. <br /><br />3. "The need to support the GEDCOM standard has imposed arbitrary limits" - any standard imposes limits, that's what standards do. More serious is that the GEDCOM standard was fossilized in the 1990s and these limits mean it doesn't do what lots of people want (e.g. it doesn't directly support the ability to record changing names of places). But again, any standard could get equally frozen - in this case, FamilySearch, driven by the LDS Church, deliberately let the GEDCOM standards wither, while retaining copyright to stop anyone else taking it forward past the 1990s limits.<br /><br />4. "Adding GEDCOM files to an existing family tree may create a large number of duplicates." I have a great deal of sympathy with this view. However, this is an argument against unthinking bulk uploading, it's not an argument against a data interchange standard as such.<br /><br /><br />Adrian Brucenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-61498473789562006482015-02-28T17:43:50.685-07:002015-02-28T17:43:50.685-07:00Thank you for posting this. I learned a lot. I als...Thank you for posting this. I learned a lot. I also listed it in my NoteWorthy Reads post for this week (see http://jahcmft.blogspot.com/2015/02/noteworthy-reads-4.html).Jo Hennhttp://jahcmft.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-86633062206516518532015-02-27T16:22:29.961-07:002015-02-27T16:22:29.961-07:00I totally agree with you.I totally agree with you.Cathy Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10461484882494138496noreply@blogger.com