BetterGEDCOM - Goal and Requirements
Co-Moderators: gthorud and AdrianB38
Please do not use the discussion tab of this page, use the Requirements Catalog.
The Goal of the BetterGEDCOM Project is:
BetterGEDCOM will be a file format for the exchange and long-term storage of genealogy and family history data.
It will be more comprehensive than existing formats and so become the format of choice.
The first step towards this goal is to identify and discuss user requirements, and technical requirements, that could be satisfied by the specification of the BetterGEDCOM file format. The work on requirements is organized around the following pages:
- Introduction to Goal and Requirements
This page highlights some selected examples of main requirements that will give you a rough idea what is being discussed. It will not be updated frequently, so parts could be outdated. - Better GEDCOM Requirements Catalog
This is the main page where each requirement is described and discussed. It has links to discussions relevant to a requirement. It may also link to other pages that discuss major high level requirements. - BG Requirements Catalog Index
The index lists all detailed requirements on the huge Catalog page. There are links to the requirements in the Catalog, so the index can be used as an entry point.
To avoid having discussions taking place all over the wiki, discussion of the goal and the requirements will be confined to pages or discussions pointed to in the Requirements Catalog. In the future, this page will be modified usually only by the moderator.
Archive
"BetterGEDCOM will be a file format for the exchange and long-term storage of genealogical data"
I apologise for digging this over again but should we distinguish between genealogical data and family-history data?
From the few threads I've participated in, I think most of us agree on the essential difference but would it recognised in the community & industry as a whole?
P.S. I added a link to BetterGEDCOM at the bottom of the wikipedia page on GEDCOM and quoted the current mission statement (under 'Alternatives'). Please let me know if this is not wanted and I'll removed it.
Tony
Tony
https://bettergedcom.wikispaces.com/message/view/GOALS/32226276#32352006
I support the broadening of the scope.
FamilySearch Labs' "Community Trees" (histfam.familysearch.org) and Genealogy.net "Local Heritage Books" (http://www.ortsfamilienbuecher.de/lavelsloh/?lang=en) are already pushing GEDCOM way beyond the a single family in a single database, since these databases have many unconnected families and even unconnected individuals.
But we really need to keep an even broader scope in mind, which includes the standards for dates and places. Legacy Family Tree is already providing databases for standard places. And FamilySearch Labs has two such projects underway: (1) England Jurisdictions 1851 (maps.familysearch.org) and (2) "Standard Finder" (labs.familysearch.org/stdfinder/PlaceStandardLookup.jsp) for both dates and places. So these things are already happening, and if BetterGEDCOM is to ultimately be the independent standards authority for GEDCOM and all that relates to it, then these aspects must also be considered, or we will be foucsing on one aspect while the world has already begun tackling the big picture.
http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=891
http://bartonstreet.com/deadends/DateFormats.pdf
http://bartonstreet.com/deadends/DateFormats.pdf
Also accessible through the DeadEnds model page via the sidebar.
Dates and Places would be the first two entries, not to mention Person Names. I have never seen how we distinguish my sister-in-laws name Mary Ann which is actually her first and second name but it is not possible to know whether it is one or two name. Most geneaology programs have a seperate field for last name, they do not diferentiate between first and second and third etc names, rather they throw them all in a field called given names.
As you mention, different programs take different approaches to documenting name parts. While there may be additional features available, FTM-M uses a single entry field on its "add person" screen; RootsMagic uses a template [Given name(s); Surname; Prefix; Suffix; and Nickname]; Legacy uses a template [Given; Surname; Title Pre; Title Suf], TMG has a name template with 9 parts [Title; Prefix; GivenName; Surname; PreSurname; Surname; Suffix; OtherName; SortSurname SortGiven].
FamilySearch and Ancestry.com struggle with the presentation of names in their indexes, though I seem to recall FamilySearch has initiated some protocols. Smile. My ancestor's marriage record is indexed as "William Mr. Preston" and "Assenath Miss Butler." Fun thread some time back on a mailing list about Ancestry's "Alabama Marriage Collection, 1800-1869." Apparently during the indexing process, long s characters (as you might find in the word "Miss") became indexed as "p", so that volumes of brides became indexed as with the examples, "Mip Mary J Armstrong," "Mip Eleanor Andress," etc., etc.
See also Requirements Catalog, Person Names
(Data-PersonNames01: Sorting on multiple given names and surnames)
https://bettergedcom.wikispaces.com/Better+GEDCOM+Requirements+Catalog#Data-PersonNames01
Above Person Names entry in the Requirements Catalog references several wiki links, below:
Wiki page
http://bettergedcom.wikispaces.com/Person-Name+Elements
Names Discussion
http://bettergedcom.wikispaces.com/message/view/Person-Name+Elements/30777083
External Gramps page
http://gramps-project.org/wiki/index.php?title=GEPS_021:_Additional_Name_Fields
On the newsgroups, I proposed a way of handling names in a culture-neutral way so that the concepts of forename/middle-name/surname are applied to the data by the genealogy product rather than being fundamentally represented in the data.
I did progress that work further if anyone is interested.
Tony
I think adding the link on Wikipedia is a great idea. The more exposure we get the better as far as I'm concerned. I'm ashamed that I didn't think of doing that a long time ago.
;)
During the first pass of discussions about the mission statement in the DTO, we developed the language below. The committee hasn't formulated a recommendation, but comments in this open forum are welcome.
[Name of Organization] brings together stakeholders from the genealogy and family history community for the purpose of developing open, international, technology standards and supporting documentation and services to benefit the community. All members ascribe to, and the organization operates in accordance with, the [name of organization] Code of Conduct*—we organize ourselves and operate without prejudice toward any existing or future genealogy software program or Internet service, ethnic group, culture or country.
The ad hoc committee did not consider the content of that code, just that a code would exist and be referenced in the statement of purpose.
If GEDCOM is preoccupied with biological lineage then I believe BG should also be concerned with all types of social links between people, local history of places, and events in the lives of the people... IMHO of course ;-)
That sort of detail is probably better in a description of why BG was needed and what it offers that GEDCOM doesn't.
I link the idea of including both terms, as in the post above. Maybe that's all that's needed in the short goal.