Talk:GEDCOM/Archive 1

Archive 1

Broken Link[s]

Today I tried to click on the link labeled "Annotated sample GEDCOM file", with a URL of "http://web.ukonline.co.uk/nigel.battysmith/gedinfo.html". The link seems to be broken. I got an error message of "404 Not Found". Mike Schwartz (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

GEDCOM XML

I hear there's a GEDCOM XML in beta. Should I assume that all the software will stick with the GEDCOM 5.5 format for some time to come? Bovlb 23:17, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. As Dick Eastman notes, 6.0 (XML) has been proposed for over three years and "nothing has happened in that time. Older versions of GEDCOM have been around for more than fifteen years, and only minor improvements have been made in that time. I expect that GEDCOM 6.0 will not appear in genealogy programs for several more years, if ever." -R. S. Shaw 20:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Someone added a note about no software supporting it "despite the inherent advantages" of XML. The problem with 6.0 is that it is a straight text conversion from 5.5, and does not give you much that you can't do with 5.5. Changing the text format does not help because every program has to convert it to its own internal format. Adding support for 6.0 would be a waste of time. DKionka (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Adding support for 6.0 would be a waste of time": there are some compelling reasons to move to XML. As you are aware, there are many tools for manipulating XML objects, rendering data, syntax checking, and so on. Modern browsers actually render XML without the need for plugins, though there are also plugins available to do fancy stuff. So while the actual move to XML may not add that much, having free and interoperable tools available would be a major win. It allows people to build on the data in unexpected and exciting ways, using tools that were never designed with any sort of genealogy in mind. That won't happen with a proprietary, niche format like GEDCOM. XML is becoming the standard way to send information between programs on the Internet. I hope we see some movement soon. --Boblord (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

could be very handy to also include download links....

OK, links to GEDCOM 5.5 Standard (Executable file in Envoy format) and Draft Specification for GEDCOM XML 6.0 (PDF) are now in the article. --Bob 02:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Errors section

The Errors section seems rather out of place - it makes no sense unless you’re familiar with the format and is ugrammatical to boot. -Ahruman 18:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

LDS and the purpose of GEDCOM

I have heard that the reason why the LDS are collecting genealogical data about people from all over the world and as far back as they can, is that they are using the information to "baptize" or initiate people into the LDS postmortem. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.67.252 (talk • contribs)

The answer to your question is both Yes and No.

It is true that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches Baptism for the Dead (ie that all mankind must be baptized to be "saved". It teaches that the adherents should perform proxy baptisms their ancestors. (proxy like the scapegoat in the old testament sacrifices or the atonement of Jesus Christ for your sins or power of attorney or Proxy marriage or other "proxy" work).

That said, the church tries to limit these baptisms to proxy work for deceased relatives and ancestors of members, although it is not always the case in practice.

The church also teaches that gathering the records and genealogies of ancestors has other benefits to one's spiritual well-being, ranging from a better understanding of one's roots to being good hobby, and that it fulfills the prophecy of Malachi in the old testament who said, "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." They interpret this to mean that children (descendants) will have an interest (turn their hearts) to their ancestors (fathers). You can read about many of these teachings at http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/default.asp.

In any case, just because a person has been baptized doesn't mean they have to be a disciple of Christ. They are free to accept or reject that work in accordance with the Law of agency.

See in your bible Malachi 4 [1]; Hebrews 11:35-40 [2] and in LDS Scripture Doctrine and Covenants section 128 [3]. Hope this helps.

Baptism for the dead is merely one reason for the LDS church's interest in genealogy. -Visorstuff 22:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Does the change to the "Limitations" section address POV? I've removed the tag, but if I'm missing something, feel free to correct me. Tlesher 00:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

directory?

I can see how it is useful to the user to have links to individual software packages, but, how does this square with Wikipedia is not a directory policy? Lifelinesszy 14:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This policy isn't a blanket prohibition against lists. It states that articles should not be dominated by lists of non-encylopedic and trivial items like current street prices, schedules, phone listings, etc. If this section were (for example) a list of all known software that supports GEDCOM, with most current version number and contact information for the publisher, then it would be a problem, but that's not currently the case. Tlesher 14:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

History

• How about GEDCOM's history and how it came about?

gioto (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Event GEDCOM

 Done

Does anyway know enough about Event GEDCOM to add some text about it? Surely it should be mentioned at least.

Now that the above has been done (material has been added to the GEDCOM article), shouldn't this suggestion be archived? (no longer needed ["active"] in the discussion page). (right?) Mike Schwartz (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

GEDCOM Data Model Ownership

IDEA - The GEDCOM article should include the status of the model, who is maintaining it for all, how it is changed, why it should exist. DISCUSSION - One or two years ago, the Mormans said they would stop maintaining/expanding the GEDCOM data model at V 5.5. I can't find on the web who, if anyone has taken this on. Individual Geno software programs are diverging in the 'data model' method of implementing new geno database fields, reducing the ability to move data between different geno software programs. I suggest this 'status' situation be included in the GEDCOM definition. Geno8327 (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Added a Infobox for the file format does anyone know who ratified the standard? gioto (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not all standards are "ratified"; FAT has been an industry standard if there ever was one, but it was never very meaningfully "ratified" by anyone outside of Microsoft (except rather belatedly for an obsolete subset of FAT in ECMA 107). AnonMoos (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you gioto (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Gedcom 5.5EL

how does Gedcom_5.5EL [4] fit in? gioto (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Answering my own question! In Germany some genealogy software supported the GEDCOM 5.5 EL (Extended Locations) specification. gioto (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Added as an example of a proprietary extensions, does anyone know of another?. gioto (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The sample GEDCOM is not valid

The sample gedcom, sample.ged, identifies itself as v. 5.5 and includes a CHAR MACINTOSH record. But MACINTOSH is not a valid value in GEDCOM 5.5, only ANSEL, ASCII and UNICODE is. This should be stated, or better a valid GEDCOM should be used as example. Lklundin (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Good Pickup.. Found the following GEDCOM [5] also made by Reunion V8.0, so the sample looks to be correct, but an explanation that the encoding should be added that only "ANSEL/UNICODE/ASCII" are supported by the GEDCOM standard.. gioto (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I am wrong [6] States that It is a superset of ASCII..Anyone? gioto (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I am not stating that the actual character encoding in the sample file is wrong, or anything else related to whatever encoding MACINTOCH corresponds to. What I am saying is that the value of the CHAR record is not part of GEDCOM 5.5. Lklundin (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok I have added a note about the sample being invalid. Although this leaves me feeling that I am picking on the company that output sample.ged. It may be better to change the output to reflect a fictional company.. 03:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)