2010-12-20 16:04:53 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: ======================================================
2010-12-20 16:05:01 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: Welcome everyone
2010-12-20 16:05:01 [Message] TamuraJones -> Organizers Meeting: Wondering what would happen if anyone said no...
2010-12-20 16:05:07 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: <<Expects Mike to join us also
2010-12-20 16:05:10 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: :::giggle:::::
2010-12-20 16:05:21 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: This is a great turn out....
2010-12-20 16:05:21 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: I expect Mike to join us also
2010-12-20 16:05:30 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: We've got an agenda....
2010-12-20 16:05:32 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: posted at:
2010-12-20 16:05:45 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: message/view/Chat/31951323
2010-12-20 16:05:54 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: (Open that in a NEW window)
2010-12-20 16:05:59 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: or else you'll leave the chat room.
2010-12-20 16:06:00 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: .
2010-12-20 16:06:00 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: .
2010-12-20 16:06:15 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: MY thanks to the folks over at Afrigeneas.com for recommending this chat interface/
2010-12-20 16:06:37 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: Does anyone have a topic to ADD to the agenda, or can your questions, comments fit in to the schedule thus far?
2010-12-20 16:06:40 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: .
2010-12-20 16:07:09 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: Subheading under wiki ... regarding to do
2010-12-20 16:07:09 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: it appears there are no specific additional topics....
2010-12-20 16:07:14 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: so let's begin
2010-12-20 16:07:23 [Message] TamuraJones -> Organizers Meeting: Hm. Wiki, blog, roles. Nothing on organisation and cooperation with other orgs.
2010-12-20 16:07:25 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: I did see that, GeneJ...thanks...
2010-12-20 16:07:40 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: good point... be sure we do that at the end....
2010-12-20 16:07:42 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: thanks Tamura.
2010-12-20 16:07:58 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: SO --- our first agenda item is an UPDATE On the wiki...
2010-12-20 16:08:08 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: Let me know if you have comments to entertain....
2010-12-20 16:08:18 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: Remember Ol' Myrt here is an end-user... and not a techie
2010-12-20 16:08:27 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: but I've noticed considerable work going on at the wiki.
2010-12-20 16:08:28 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: .
2010-12-20 16:08:28 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: .
2010-12-20 16:08:32 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: comments Andy?
2010-12-20 16:08:37 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: then GeneJ
2010-12-20 16:08:39 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: Russ
2010-12-20 16:08:42 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: Tamura
2010-12-20 16:08:44 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: then Tom?
2010-12-20 16:08:47 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: is that good?
2010-12-20 16:08:48 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: .
2010-12-20 16:08:49 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: .
2010-12-20 16:09:00 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: Andy?
2010-12-20 16:09:44 [Message] Andy_Hatchett -> Organizers Meeting: Just a comment on Tamura's comment- I'm not sure how we can cooperate with other organizations when we really don't have anything to cooperate with- no product per se.
2010-12-20 16:10:03 [Message] TamuraJones -> Organizers Meeting: Going round the table not necessary in chat interface. Just see who has comments?
2010-12-20 16:10:08 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: ok let's take that topic first then
2010-12-20 16:10:29 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: We reported last meeting about attendance at the OpenGen meeting.
2010-12-20 16:10:39 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: yes, it is in our notes.
2010-12-20 16:10:56 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: small turn out -- and Steve there is planning to write the code for the rest of us to follow.
2010-12-20 16:11:19 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: we also discussed RootsTech Conference -- and participating in the open forum
2010-12-20 16:11:30 [Message] Andy_Hatchett -> Organizers Meeting: &lt;-- Andy doesn't think that will fly :)
2010-12-20 16:11:43 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: OpenGen or RootsTech?
2010-12-20 16:11:55 [Message] Andy_Hatchett -> Organizers Meeting: Steve writing code ;)
2010-12-20 16:12:24 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: Working in a collaborative environment takes a few more folks... he is trying... and has his own website's GEDCOM concerns to correct.
2010-12-20 16:12:36 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: I'm concerned that OpenGen is behind a closed door, as I indicated during the OpenGen meeting by comment
2010-12-20 16:12:42 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: GeneJ has AppleTree made any more postings here at BetterGEDCOM?
2010-12-20 16:12:53 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: Not that I am aware.
2010-12-20 16:13:10 [Message] Andy_Hatchett -> Organizers Meeting: Yes- I don't like closed doors- as I make Ancestry aware of- constantly! :)
2010-12-20 16:13:17 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: :)
2010-12-20 16:13:25 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: I knew you'd get an Ancestry comment in there, Andy :)
2010-12-20 16:13:26 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: LOL
2010-12-20 16:13:36 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: We may have our hair undone a time or two, but at least we all know it
2010-12-20 16:13:43 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: Well, we don't want to exclude anyone's participation.
2010-12-20 16:14:07 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: what have been the big points at the Wiki this week?
2010-12-20 16:14:13 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: I've been swamped with Blog things....
2010-12-20 16:14:21 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: Tamura, have you gone behind the closed door ... are we cutting off our nose to spite our face/
2010-12-20 16:14:23 [Message] Andy_Hatchett -> Organizers Meeting: I'm an equal opportunity biggot- I levlieve all sacred cows should be gored equally.
2010-12-20 16:14:36 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: oh dear.
2010-12-20 16:15:06 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: Or, Tamura, have we missed the point of your comment/question/concern?
2010-12-20 16:15:16 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: has the group basically decided on am XML format?
2010-12-20 16:15:27 [Message] TamuraJones -> Organizers Meeting: I don't think their door is closed. They are just out to create a more formal organisation. So far, everyone is welcome at their virtual meetings.
2010-12-20 16:15:44 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: I haven't seen concensus on XML
2010-12-20 16:15:51 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: ok...
2010-12-20 16:15:53 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: An interesting topic that has come up recently in the wiki discussions has been the issue of representing relationships in a transport file.
2010-12-20 16:15:55 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: Sorry, I meant their work is not pubically viewable
2010-12-20 16:16:13 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: XML seem fait accompli
2010-12-20 16:16:14 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: *publically
2010-12-20 16:16:15 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: yes --- without flattening a distinction between witnesses who are or are not relatives.
2010-12-20 16:17:01 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: Tom, am I right to worry that the cost may be too much for software vendors?
2010-12-20 16:17:03 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Tom - I thought we were trying to reach consensus.
2010-12-20 16:17:19 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: the cost of implementation, GeneJ?
2010-12-20 16:17:28 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: Of conversion to XML
2010-12-20 16:17:33 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: oic
2010-12-20 16:17:43 [Message] Andy_Hatchett -> Organizers Meeting: While I haven't seen actual consensus I get a feeling that the concensus is the consensus will eventually be XML
2010-12-20 16:17:43 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: I think cost of converting to XML is small
2010-12-20 16:17:55 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: so a few steps back.
2010-12-20 16:18:05 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: how do you feel the discussions are going....
2010-12-20 16:18:11 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: are members ready to go forward
2010-12-20 16:18:12 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Is there coding that an application has to do, to use XML?
2010-12-20 16:18:18 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: or do more parties need to come to the table
2010-12-20 16:18:29 [Message] TamuraJones -> Organizers Meeting: Most standards organisations work in private, and publish their results. They seem quite open to people joining in.
2010-12-20 16:18:32 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: if we expect to suggest a universal application of a bettergedcom.
2010-12-20 16:19:24 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: XML is so ubiquitous now that all development environments have libraries that essentially make it free.
2010-12-20 16:19:46 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: hmmm
2010-12-20 16:19:55 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: So, any software house can easily and quickly implement XML
2010-12-20 16:20:07 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: yes
2010-12-20 16:20:09 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: That's a question. Sorry
2010-12-20 16:20:11 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Thank youi
2010-12-20 16:20:34 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: so on the goals page that everyone has been living with -- xml is one of the goals....
2010-12-20 16:20:37 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Are there any down sides to XML? Performance?
2010-12-20 16:20:46 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: Too many pointy things.
2010-12-20 16:20:53 [Message] Andy_Hatchett -> Organizers Meeting: LOL!
2010-12-20 16:21:24 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Sorry Tom. Don't understand pointy things? (except Dilbert)
2010-12-20 16:21:28 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: Performance not an issue in this day and age.
2010-12-20 16:21:41 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: (All the &lt;'s and &gt;'s)
2010-12-20 16:21:49 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Thank you Tom!!
2010-12-20 16:21:52 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: I do understand that coming up with a "universal" test database is at issue -- how is that coming along?
2010-12-20 16:22:09 [Join Room] mstransky -> Chat Lobby
2010-12-20 16:22:09 [IP] mstransky:
2010-12-20 16:22:09 [Login] mstransky
2010-12-20 16:22:11 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Who is going to create this test database?
2010-12-20 16:22:38 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: GeneJ can you go out and get mike?
2010-12-20 16:22:38 [Message] Andy_Hatchett -> Organizers Meeting: And what program will generate it?
2010-12-20 16:22:44 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: it is so problematic
2010-12-20 16:23:00 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: since exporting is the very issue we seek to resolve.
2010-12-20 16:23:03 [Join Room] mstransky -> Organizers Meeting
2010-12-20 16:23:03 [Exit Room] mstransky -> Chat Lobby
2010-12-20 16:23:13 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: Welcome, Mike.
2010-12-20 16:23:19 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: Russ, how are your test reports coming over at the Blog?
2010-12-20 16:23:25 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: I know you've been away.
2010-12-20 16:23:35 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: I have a couple to post, now that I am back home
2010-12-20 16:23:44 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: Mike, we're logging this -- do we have your permission to post this at the iki.
2010-12-20 16:23:46 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: ok
2010-12-20 16:23:52 [Message] mstransky -> Organizers Meeting: yes
2010-12-20 16:23:56 [Message] mstransky -> Organizers Meeting: yes
2010-12-20 16:24:07 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: From comments, people wish to test using the same database -- can you upload it to a file area here?
2010-12-20 16:24:14 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: thanks Mike.
2010-12-20 16:24:24 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: I can send the file to anyone who asks for it
2010-12-20 16:24:39 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: ok, that's workable. Can you make a posting on that?
2010-12-20 16:24:42 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: Is the database a GEDCOM file?
2010-12-20 16:24:50 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: I think we need a "smarter" file. I looked at Tamura's tests today ... those file are MEANT to consider specific issues
2010-12-20 16:24:51 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Yes
2010-12-20 16:24:55 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: err... hightlight
2010-12-20 16:24:55 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: when folks see your work is repeatable....
2010-12-20 16:25:18 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: Tamura - is your test file available?
2010-12-20 16:25:42 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: hmmmmm
2010-12-20 16:25:49 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: Tamura has already run those tests
2010-12-20 16:25:55 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: must have gone for some milk and cookies.
2010-12-20 16:26:00 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: I trust Tamura's work...
2010-12-20 16:26:25 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: When we pick a sample file from FTM or TMG or GENBOX,
2010-12-20 16:26:27 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: enabling others to independently test is also worthwhile.
2010-12-20 16:26:29 [Message] TamuraJones -> Organizers Meeting: Description of tests: http://www.tamurajones.net/ThreeTortureTests.xhtml Some results: http://www.tamurajones.net/SomeGEDCOMTortureTestResults.xhtml Download page: http://www.tamurajones.net/Downloads.xhtml
2010-12-20 16:26:36 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: thanks, Tamura.
2010-12-20 16:26:36 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Do we put a link from the Blog test results to Tamuras results?
2010-12-20 16:26:37 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: we aren't necessarily getting a "tough" file
2010-12-20 16:26:49 [Message] TamuraJones -> Organizers Meeting: However...
2010-12-20 16:27:04 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: Create a page here on the wiki --- to both Tamura's work and yours, Russ.
2010-12-20 16:27:09 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: that gets the message out.
2010-12-20 16:27:20 [Message] TamuraJones -> Organizers Meeting: These are indeed meant to highlight specific issues and test results require careful interpretation.
2010-12-20 16:27:22 [Message] Andy_Hatchett -> Organizers Meeting: If you want a "tough" file just grab the Stobie.ged file from Worldconnect!
2010-12-20 16:27:26 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Tamura - thanks for the links
2010-12-20 16:27:40 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: how about links to all three on the page you create Russ?
2010-12-20 16:27:43 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: is that doable?
2010-12-20 16:28:16 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Sure, I'll add the links to Tamura's pages
2010-12-20 16:28:25 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: I think we need family data level stuff ... thinks we enter to one program, then test the dataloss to GEDCOM ...
2010-12-20 16:28:30 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: things
2010-12-20 16:28:46 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: I should say "information" loss
2010-12-20 16:28:50 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: thanks Russ... I think that when an end user takes the time to do this, the techies take the end user comments to heart... more than just fluff
2010-12-20 16:29:02 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: yes ---
2010-12-20 16:29:16 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: .
2010-12-20 16:29:16 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: .
2010-12-20 16:29:40 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: earlier I asked if we're ready to have a bigger meeting -- or do you think we need to invite more participants to the table here at BetterGEDCOM.
2010-12-20 16:29:46 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: OR Data Gain, like TMG added a person to our test file
2010-12-20 16:29:48 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: We've had interest from German group, etc.
2010-12-20 16:29:58 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: weird, Russ, huh?
2010-12-20 16:30:04 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: And I know why
2010-12-20 16:30:07 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: I think
2010-12-20 16:30:17 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: Yes... ty for recalling that, Russ
2010-12-20 16:30:21 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: I documented that on the blog
2010-12-20 16:30:42 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: There is no impetus for the German group to join in a universal UNLESS the realize that as genealogists are more digital -- we will be sharing databases sooner or later.
2010-12-20 16:31:31 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: One thing Iv'e noticed re: blog is that power geneabloggers are relating to the BetterGEDCOM message better than via the wiki....
2010-12-20 16:31:49 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: Randy Seaver has written to spotlight the work
2010-12-20 16:32:09 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: two have written privately to explain they couldn't wrap their heads around the techie stuff at the wiki
2010-12-20 16:32:18 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: but could relate to the things you two are posting on the blog.
2010-12-20 16:32:35 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: so thatis a good thing,
2010-12-20 16:32:42 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: My goal is to spotlight the work you all are doing
2010-12-20 16:32:45 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: Err... Russ doing the heavy lifting. I'm drawing pictures. :)
2010-12-20 16:32:50 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: I cannot do the coding
2010-12-20 16:32:52 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Two different points of view but same end game
2010-12-20 16:32:52 [Message] Andy_Hatchett -> Organizers Meeting: That's because the Blog is easier to follow. :) You don't have to run to 80 gazillion pages to keep up with what is going on.
2010-12-20 16:32:59 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: yes that is true.
2010-12-20 16:33:22 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: How do we being to "fix" that on the wiki???
2010-12-20 16:33:25 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: so while the power geneabloggers are now more comfortable with the "betterGedcom" pitch
2010-12-20 16:33:39 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: The goals discussion when real well this weekend.
2010-12-20 16:33:42 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: put gags on the coders?
2010-12-20 16:33:44 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: LOL.
2010-12-20 16:33:52 [Message] Andy_Hatchett -> Organizers Meeting: You can't talk tech developments without techie talk :)
2010-12-20 16:33:52 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: and it ended up on a PAGE where pps could follow it
2010-12-20 16:34:07 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: you are so right Andy... I agree with you.
2010-12-20 16:34:11 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: and I know my limitations.
2010-12-20 16:34:25 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: Tom, Mike, Tamura ??? thoughts?
2010-12-20 16:34:27 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: and since consensus is the plan here
2010-12-20 16:34:53 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: I think we are unclear on outputs.
2010-12-20 16:35:07 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: How do we "fix" that.
2010-12-20 16:35:07 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: Are we patching GEDCOM and making it look like XML.
2010-12-20 16:35:12 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: BetterGEDCOM outputs?
2010-12-20 16:35:13 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: Or are we inventing a new model?
2010-12-20 16:35:17 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: making decisions about outputs and the end GEDCOM file transfer?
2010-12-20 16:35:43 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: i think everyone basically agrees that patchign GEDCOM is just an interium step.
2010-12-20 16:35:48 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: Output == Description of the new transport file format
2010-12-20 16:35:48 [Message] Andy_Hatchett -> Organizers Meeting: Maybe split the Wiki- Tech Talk on a sub page(s) of the main page- just a menu Item " Tech Stuff"
2010-12-20 16:35:55 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: but that it is a weak platform.
2010-12-20 16:36:11 [Message] mstransky -> Organizers Meeting: I found a starter list to start, make a table from it then have a compare columb.
2010-12-20 16:36:14 [Message] mstransky -> Organizers Meeting: http://genealogy.about.com/library/weekly/aa110100d.htm
2010-12-20 16:36:21 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Andy - But the Wiki is where Techies speak and the Blog is for the non-techies
2010-12-20 16:36:28 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: I hope anyway
2010-12-20 16:36:39 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: Let's look at Andy's suggestion
2010-12-20 16:36:48 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: for a second
2010-12-20 16:36:59 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: are there just too many topics on the nav bar on the left?
2010-12-20 16:37:03 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Tom - Thank you --- what do WE need to do, for teh New Transport file format?
2010-12-20 16:37:16 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: yes -- what can WE do to HELP?
2010-12-20 16:37:27 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: Tom, in your opinion, what's the better move, patch with small update andthe secondarily make a significant move .... OR no patch and just a significant move ... AND what would that mean to the many folks who feel now their research is TRAPPED in one program or another?
2010-12-20 16:37:46 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: Either do like the Germans and patch GEDCOM or take on the larger task of supporting a bigger model, or find some compromist in the middle.
2010-12-20 16:38:02 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: C
2010-12-20 16:38:03 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: what about a TIMELINE with the patch first?
2010-12-20 16:38:03 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: T
2010-12-20 16:38:10 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: to prove successful?
2010-12-20 16:38:17 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: is that doable? or even wise?
2010-12-20 16:38:21 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Tom can this be done in two or three steps?
2010-12-20 16:38:29 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: timeline of getting things done ?
2010-12-20 16:38:38 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Patch, Enhance, Future?
2010-12-20 16:38:51 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: that is what I'm asking/thinking.
2010-12-20 16:38:58 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: Hard question -- I have no instant answer.
2010-12-20 16:39:11 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: what do you all think... you are the most prolific participants here.
2010-12-20 16:39:18 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: OK - so, what is the next step?
2010-12-20 16:39:25 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: when it comes to posting.
2010-12-20 16:39:41 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: I PREFER taking on the big task, but I don't know at all if that is the best course for success for Better GEDCOM
2010-12-20 16:40:07 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: from the software developers' point of view -- which would be harder to implement without wasting development $$$ for their individual end-products?
2010-12-20 16:40:14 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Tom. Thank you. How about how long to take on the Big Step
2010-12-20 16:40:34 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: Let me think a bit on that
2010-12-20 16:40:34 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Does the Big Step set better for the solftware developers?
2010-12-20 16:40:49 [Message] Andy_Hatchett -> Organizers Meeting: How do you 'patch' the present GEDCOM and still have the hooks in it for future enhancements? Seems to me it has to be one or the other-and that eventually everyone has to recognize that wether we admit it or not that we are out to kill GEDCOM entirely and replace it.
2010-12-20 16:41:06 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: By definition software developers prefer doing new things. You have to watch out for that.
2010-12-20 16:41:26 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: I tend to agree with Andy there.
2010-12-20 16:41:32 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: But the bill payers and End Uses might not like to pay for the Big Deal
2010-12-20 16:41:55 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: Ah, the universal tension in any software product!
2010-12-20 16:42:03 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: You bet
2010-12-20 16:42:04 [Action] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: sighs
2010-12-20 16:42:16 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: My concern is getting those develpers to the table.
2010-12-20 16:42:19 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: Louis and gthorud, too
2010-12-20 16:42:37 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: well, I know of three software developers watching us closely. Two don't want XML.
2010-12-20 16:42:43 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: New things may get them here, but are the developers going to get the funding to play in the new sandbox?
2010-12-20 16:42:45 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: and they are the ones selling big in the US.
2010-12-20 16:43:00 [Message] TamuraJones -> Organizers Meeting: Huh? Why wouldn't they want XML?
2010-12-20 16:43:10 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: don't kill the messenger, Tamura.
2010-12-20 16:43:14 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: ;)
2010-12-20 16:43:16 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: The NIH factor
2010-12-20 16:43:30 [Message] Andy_Hatchett -> Organizers Meeting: Russ, TMG finally got Ancestry to the table- althought it DID take a while! That is why you and I can exchange files directly and not worry with all this :)
2010-12-20 16:43:35 [Message] TamuraJones -> Organizers Meeting: If NIH is the problem, then the entire effort is doomed.
2010-12-20 16:44:12 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: i am thinking that with the power geneabloggers and upset end users this will bring pressure to the developers.
2010-12-20 16:44:29 [Message] TamuraJones -> Organizers Meeting: Myrtle: Refrained from killing you for now, so you can explain why they don't want XML.
2010-12-20 16:44:47 [Message] mstransky -> Organizers Meeting: 1. have a hit list of user wants and needs, 2. then have a needed data filed list, 3. last see how that can be used across the board the most universal way. Work in small chunks not to mash the storage together.
2010-12-20 16:44:52 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: Raises hand ... what is NIH?
2010-12-20 16:44:57 [Message] TamuraJones -> Organizers Meeting: Not Invented Here
2010-12-20 16:44:58 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: those were flat statements, Tamura.
2010-12-20 16:45:02 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: kk .. tyty
2010-12-20 16:45:08 [Message] mstransky -> Organizers Meeting: nih?
2010-12-20 16:45:16 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Hot Invented Here
2010-12-20 16:45:20 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: I thought it was "no way in He_ _"
2010-12-20 16:45:25 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Not Invented Here
2010-12-20 16:45:33 [Message] Andy_Hatchett -> Organizers Meeting: I want to know why the powerbloggers don't harp on this more- like in reviews, etc. "great program- but can't recommend since it can't directly exchange files with other programs"
2010-12-20 16:45:46 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: Of the 4 biggest names in US software development 2 are like that.
2010-12-20 16:45:49 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: the other two are not.
2010-12-20 16:45:58 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: Adrian, too!!!
2010-12-20 16:46:02 [Message] TamuraJones -> Organizers Meeting: Ahem. Cough. Have been complaining about GEDCOM implementation for a few years now.
2010-12-20 16:46:18 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: but if the TESTS Russ does with the new versions of those two programs are advertised -- those 2 willing developers will win out.
2010-12-20 16:46:23 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Tamura - Yes, you certainly have. We need others
2010-12-20 16:46:46 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: ... bows to Tamura!!!
2010-12-20 16:46:54 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: Andy -- the powerbloggers are too afraid of stepping on toes --- and that's why from time to time I get into trouble.
2010-12-20 16:47:09 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: (I step on toes -- someone has to speak the truth.)
2010-12-20 16:47:16 [Message] Andy_Hatchett -> Organizers Meeting: Tamura- no disrespect but complaing about GEDCOM and a flat recommendation to NOT buy a program because it can't directly exchange file are two completely different things.
2010-12-20 16:47:16 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: no one does comparatives like you do Tamura.
2010-12-20 16:47:17 [Message] TamuraJones -> Organizers Meeting: I'd love to see other reviewers consider basics like GEDCOM input and output before oh-ing and ah-ing over new features.
2010-12-20 16:47:41 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: From the goals updates this weekend ... The BetterGEDCOM project should provide a test suite of data that will allow software suppliers and users to assess compliance of software, diagnose issues and assist in their resolution.
2010-12-20 16:47:45 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: I actually believe that MOST reviewers are NOT like Russ
2010-12-20 16:47:53 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: who takes the time to thoroughly know the program inside and out.
2010-12-20 16:47:58 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: they are generalists
2010-12-20 16:48:16 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: who receive review copies and merely massage the text that comes from the developer.
2010-12-20 16:48:52 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: I've been guilty of that myself over the years... but I am learning that isn't good for my DearREADERS.
2010-12-20 16:49:13 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: 10 minute warning Dear Myrtle
2010-12-20 16:49:26 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: just looking at that --- THANKS Russ.
2010-12-20 16:49:32 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: ok so we've bantered things around
2010-12-20 16:49:40 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: gotten accustomed to meeting face to face
2010-12-20 16:49:44 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: haven't decided much
2010-12-20 16:49:56 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: Tom and Mike are correct ... regardless of where we are going, we need to
2010-12-20 16:49:56 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: EXCEPT that some streamlining of the wiki might be in order
2010-12-20 16:50:01 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: and that Russ will create a page here
2010-12-20 16:50:10 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: start to get some of the parameters DOWN on pages.
2010-12-20 16:50:11 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: LImit EDITS to members of the wiki on that page
2010-12-20 16:50:12 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Tom - Can we see your thoughts in the Wiki is the near future ?
2010-12-20 16:50:25 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: or we won't be able to find our way around the discussions.
2010-12-20 16:50:49 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: I will write some thoughts.
2010-12-20 16:50:56 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Thank you Tom !!
2010-12-20 16:51:36 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: so Tom and Russ -- you want to work on streamlining the side nav bar
2010-12-20 16:51:38 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: ?
2010-12-20 16:51:39 [Message] mstransky -> Organizers Meeting: Tom I have a starter table I will send you if it helps
2010-12-20 16:51:43 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: I'll step back onthat?
2010-12-20 16:51:50 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: that's great Mike.
2010-12-20 16:52:24 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Mike are you going to share with the wiki or just Tom?
2010-12-20 16:52:28 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: Let me think about thoughts first.
2010-12-20 16:52:41 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: Before messing majorly with the wiki structure.
2010-12-20 16:53:07 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: What if we just made a page for each topic, with the sub-topics listed as they are on the nav bar ---
2010-12-20 16:53:09 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: so there are only
2010-12-20 16:53:11 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Dear Myrtle asked earlier about who else needs to come to the table. Any suggestions?
2010-12-20 16:53:11 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: HOEM
2010-12-20 16:53:12 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: CHAT
2010-12-20 16:53:15 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: Gathering info
2010-12-20 16:53:26 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: SANDBOX
2010-12-20 16:53:29 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: I think Louis would be great
2010-12-20 16:53:30 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: Doc & Data
2010-12-20 16:53:42 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: Adrian
2010-12-20 16:53:44 [Message] mstransky -> Organizers Meeting: I started my sft to compare to gedcom, if we all sync and add to that gen view we all acan consintrate on it with out learning each others styles.
2010-12-20 16:53:46 [Message] mstransky -> Organizers Meeting: http://www.stranskyfamilytree.net/SFTxmlcompare.asp
2010-12-20 16:54:05 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Louis and Adrian have been to the Wiki, how about others who have not been contributing to the Wiki
2010-12-20 16:54:07 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: Yes, Adrian for sure
2010-12-20 16:54:33 [Message] mstransky -> Organizers Meeting: Each of us can add to our our table, and add new tags to the BG table, then go back to update our own snyc list
2010-12-20 16:54:47 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: Jim Eggert, Bob Velke, Rafal Prinke
2010-12-20 16:55:04 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: Bruce Buzbee, the Legacy FTree folks
2010-12-20 16:55:04 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Thank you
2010-12-20 16:55:10 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: I hope we'll hear from Bob V ... but he really is deep in TMG v8
2010-12-20 16:55:13 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: Steve Morse.
2010-12-20 16:55:23 [Message] Andy_Hatchett -> Organizers Meeting: Myrt- Sandbox, ALL datamodel stuff should be under one heading_ Tech Corner_
2010-12-20 16:55:52 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: ok -- Sounds reasonable How about I make a Page like that --- this way we don't lose any discussions?
2010-12-20 16:56:06 [Message] ttwetmore -> Organizers Meeting: If you could get anyone from Ancestry or FamilySearch it would make this a much more possible undertaking.
2010-12-20 16:56:08 [Message] Andy_Hatchett -> Organizers Meeting: I'm pretty sure Bob will show up after version 8 gets out the door.
2010-12-20 16:56:17 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: FS is following us closely.
2010-12-20 16:56:28 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: I agree with Andy
2010-12-20 16:56:39 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: They are tyring to remain neutral -- in case *another* organization takes the lead.
2010-12-20 16:57:09 [Message] Andy_Hatchett -> Organizers Meeting: &lt;--- hates fencesitters with a passion! ;)
2010-12-20 16:57:14 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: ...also believe they are watching, and as they see some real progress, they will hover more.
2010-12-20 16:57:21 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: Can we all AGREE that TECH CORNER is a new page, and everything below CHAT goes on that page?
2010-12-20 16:57:40 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: The blogging community WILL help us if we translate the work into examples they can blog about.
2010-12-20 16:57:50 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: and you and Russ havebeen doing that very well.
2010-12-20 16:58:06 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: Got a serious question ----
2010-12-20 16:58:12 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: TAMURA what time is it there for you?
2010-12-20 16:58:14 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: Wonder if GOALS should stay up above?
2010-12-20 16:58:21 [Message] TamuraJones -> Organizers Meeting: I'm sleepy.
2010-12-20 16:58:25 [Message] Andy_Hatchett -> Organizers Meeting: I'm not sure the History of GEDCOM should go there- keep tnat out so newbies can get a foothold on the subject without a lot of digging.
2010-12-20 16:58:30 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: Good answer, Tamura.
2010-12-20 16:58:34 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: TY for making time, Tamura
2010-12-20 16:58:46 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: kk
2010-12-20 16:59:11 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: I'll follow the log and get the nav bar fixed -- but I have a grandkids Christmas party to host in a little bit.
2010-12-20 16:59:15 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: We've got one minute.
2010-12-20 16:59:21 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: anything more I can do to assist.
2010-12-20 16:59:30 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: You all are doing 99% of the work.
2010-12-20 16:59:32 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: Large group meeting ... I think sooner than later.
2010-12-20 16:59:40 [Message] Andy_Hatchett -> Organizers Meeting: Gene- Yes!
2010-12-20 16:59:52 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: well, let's you and I experiment with the interface--- as lsited on the agenda.
2010-12-20 17:00:01 [Message] GeneJ -> Organizers Meeting: I think waiting till after 1st is TOO LONG
2010-12-20 17:00:01 [Message] Andy_Hatchett -> Organizers Meeting: Has to run or dog is gonna kile me ! ;)
2010-12-20 17:00:03 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: OpenGen seems to have withdrawn its offer of space.
2010-12-20 17:00:13 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: I cannot schedule it in.
2010-12-20 17:00:48 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: OK --- it is 5pm Pacific time....
2010-12-20 17:01:04 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: I'll get these unabridged minutes posted first thing in the morning.
2010-12-20 17:01:04 [Message] hrworth -> Organizers Meeting: Thank you ALL !!! Great Chat / Meeting
2010-12-20 17:01:14 [Message] dearmyrtle -> Organizers Meeting: =================================================


louiskessler 2010-12-20T19:27:00-08:00
Dec 20 Comments
I had a conflict today and could not attend.

Just in case you had me in the 2 out of 3 developers opposed to XML. I am NOT opposed to XML.

In fact I think the XML 6.0 draft is a good place to start (I've posted that in the forum already) and we should fix just what needs to be fixed and add just what needs to be added, and quickly come out with a GEDCOM XML 6.1 (or 7.0 if you want to go a bit further).

I don't think this group (or any group for that matter) can come out with the perfect model the first time. It's hard enough to get a few people to agree on anything. So I think something workable should come out first, and then it can be versioned forward towards the ideal.

After all, it took GEDCOM itself 5.5.1 versions to get where it is. And 5.5 and 5.5.1 were good enough to get 99% of genealogy software developers to support it.
mstransky 2010-12-20T19:37:35-08:00

Louis what styled xml types do you suggest. In types like native xml or others?
louiskessler 2010-12-20T21:40:38-08:00


From the programming side, I do know how to input and process XML, but that's about it.

I've never developed an XML spec or worked with them at the abstract level. I'm not even sure about what you are referring to when you say "styled xml types" and "native xml".

I'm happy to help with genealogical content and interpretation of the current GEDCOM spec, but dealing with the XML spec should be left up to others.


ttwetmore 2010-12-20T22:25:23-08:00
XML is a syntax for holding tagged, hierarchical text-trees. GEDCOM is the same kind of thing. You can translate back and forth trivially. They are two different syntaxes for holding the same semantic content. The advantage of XML is that it has become so wildly popular that every language (C, C++, Java, Objective-C, Python, Perl, Ruby) has their own libraries for parsing and processing XML files. You won't find GEDCOM packages everywhere you turn, though you will find many. XML also has some add-ons that allow easy navigation through the XML structures and easy manipulation and transformation of the values found there. See XPath and Xquery and XSLT. I've never really liked XML and its add-ons (programming in XSLT is excruciating), because I have a strong aversion to running with herds, and generally don't like things designed by large international standards bodies with throw in the kitchen sink mentalities, but the XML stampede is so large that one must take steps to avoid being trampled.

There is a counter movement now occurring because of the hyper-popularity of XML and its "one size fits all" mantra. This movement is back to the situation I came from when different applications would invent their own specialized languages for expressing their domains of interest. For example, GEDCOM is one of those specialized languages. But right now the world is fully in the thrall of XML and it will be a while before the hysteria dies down. You just sound smart if you advocate using XML so you do that. The fact is, once you import the data, the syntactic sugar of XML all disappears and you simply have easy to process tree structures. XML is just the hard, crunchy shell you use to move the data from one place to another.

Tom Wetmore
mstransky 2010-12-21T05:39:56-08:00
This is what I think will be the easy way to get some traction. If any of you are firmialr with

lets use the common ground every dev and program people are firmilar with. The common gedcom file.

Gedcom needs a patch/update to include need tags that outside platforms need to say I need to stick dtafield in tag "X", "Y", "Z".

Lets goahead and make room in an unoffical gedcom with such tags to hold that data.

have a hit list, one for BG's which list all know tags on the last offical understanding of it.
Deadends, Gramps, and other platforms can look at this list and say I need to export X and DE says I have Y. you both realize you want to call it R since it is the same data. ADD "R" to the unoffical list.

Step 1.b
Each programm dev can copy this table and see if they can make room or snyc to this unoffical BG gedcom.

STEP 2 As it has been done before.
If most apps output to gedcom and also add the additional unoffical extra DATA FIELDS we
can quickly create a GEDCOM to XML converter.

Once you have one file in xml it is very easy to use a parse to convert it from one style of xml to another. Or even use an xslt to convert a xml back to a GEDCOM flat filein text output.

Last night before the meeting I grab a list and made a table from it.
I have started my hit list what data I hold and need to sync too.
BG could have a table like this and just add NEW fields needed to give needed room to output data fields into tags.

With that list/table others can visually campore their own DBs. everyone can start making preperation to make room.

NO APP TAKES THE LEAD!!! we can export to a common UNoFFICAL gedcom, or just export data to a XML file which can output to a like gedcom in XML representation.

Let each APP make there own parses or converters from that non bias format.
AND put back to such a non bias format.
mstransky 2010-12-21T05:55:08-08:00
Tom, are you able to perform a client side xslt with your program? say if you were to import louis or gramps mine etc... "unoffical gedcom like representation in xml" which would look like say GEDml. run that by a xslt to rearrange the node tags to output it to a text or sql output that you could than run in your system? when you are done and ready, just spit back out your system data to

1. unoffical BG gedcom
2. Unoffical XML of #1

then the same process follows for the others system to pull that data in.

As long as we all know to cover the "LIST" we should not loss any data.

Web Side I could convert a ged flat file to a xml structure. then xslt that into multi part BDs. when I amd done I can XSLT all the multi DB xmls back to a GEDCOM text flat file or single xml file of a gedcom. There anyone can pull either file into thier system and use the data.

But without a "sync list" and "unoffical gedcom" we will just spin our wheels.
ttwetmore 2010-12-21T09:00:14-08:00
I haven't put XSLT into my code, and there is no need for me to write any translators for my models. This is because my programs, LifeLines and the various experimental DeadEnds projects I have written, all read pure GEDCOM syntax and make no modifications to that on import or export. My software always reads exactly the GEDCOM given to it and makes no changes to the GEDCOM as it processes it or stores it in database. Therefore my programs don't have a "list of tags" that they support. They support all tags, from those defined in 5.5 to anything else any user wants to add.

This important distinction between GEDCOM as a syntax and GEDCOM as implementing a semantic model is often lost in the noise. Most everyone thinks of GEDCOM as the 5.5 specification for lineage-linked INDI and FAM records, but in fact the GEDCOM syntax is just like XML - it can be used to structure any type of information with any sets of tags and value types one might want to invent. GEDCOM 5.5 is best thought of in exactly the same way one would think of an XML schema.

Eventually, like every other genealogical program, mine would have to export data into a transport file format. Right now my programs export its internal GEDCOM records unchanged, so if the user sticks to only basic lineage-linking tags those files will be importable by any other program. On the other hand, if the user puts in novel tags and uses their own conventions, this non-5.5 data will almost definitely be stripped out by any other importing program. My programs can also generate the identical data using XMl syntax, but it's just a straightforward transformation from GEDCOM to XML.

Another question is whether XSLT could be used internally within a program to help generate reports. This could give the user great flexibility in programming their own reports. However XSLT is a horrendous thing to program in, and would also require the database to be viewed as XML records (a good thing in my opinion by the way). Both my programs and Gramps allow users to program their own reports (also GEDEdit II also allows some I think), but we use languages that are custom to the application at hand, that is genealogical reports, rather than having to think of the reports as rather abstruse transformations on XML data using a difficult programming language.

Thus I can't be of any help in these comparison projects.

Tom Wetmore
mstransky 2010-12-21T10:28:51-08:00
being that you are 99-100% gedcom compliant you don't have much need to alter much at all.

So yes you really have no need for xslt at all. You could just export your GEDCOM as gedcom version? if you include new data fields that others do not use.

"Thus I can't be of any help in these comparison projects." -Tom

Actually you can, I have never found a complete list of GEDCOM 5.5 tag attributes, and never seen a list how data looks within such tags.

So for me to understand your "data in the fields" it would be hard for me to construct a complete converter.
Sure I could make one today, then if you gave me a compy of your file and I noticed a tag XXXX that I have never seen before how do I handle it, what was its purpose? I could make out INDI and FAM and MARR, but if a critical tag say EVDC had a number 36. That would mean nothing to me.

but if you added that or gave it an equivalent meaning in gedcom like

EVDC {evidence count} A number assigned to a record by an originating automated system that can be used by a system to set order of seq results pertaining to that record.

WOW then I would know you use this data field to set in order your reorcd by prefrence. even though I may use date order of records. i could absorb this number into my database "hold it". I may or may not use it, but if I ever needed to export this complete file out to a BG standard I am now aware I MUST EXPORT a field of data to EVDC if I have it or not. This way the next party picking up that complete DB can trust no data was neglected or dropped.

reading the above you have a system ready to go. If I have tags which may or may not be a GEDCOM 5.5 It would be nice to know it a data field is properly labeled. If have a nick name tag NICK or NNAM, what does gedcom use? AKA?

So many tags have been created in other systems to handle data there own way. that the PROPER translation has been lost.
1) GEDCOM offering to many tags that others really dont use.
2) Others creating their own set of tags that GEDCOM would not support
3) App using tags to store data in that could have been stored in a proper tag to begin with.

Do you kind of see that one platform really is blind to the next. If we don't call a duck a duck, you might find data in field that were meant for something else.

That is why I mean to have a Sync Table to kind of put stray data back on the proper path. and also for ultimate transparency of data fields and purposes.
mstransky 2010-12-21T10:43:07-08:00
Tom, Louis lets post comments uder this thread, I just seen we are under the minutes thread
gthorud 2010-12-21T18:52:46-08:00
Dec 20 - more comments
A few comments on the minutes from the Dec 20 meeting.

I am sorry I did not participate, but I am a slow writer and thinker. I prefer discussion methods that are slower than chat.

Patching GEDCOM versus a standard with lots of new functionality. Where is the boarder between these two alternatives? I think we should aim for the full thing, a patch will then be the minimum implementation of that. There is no alternative - or is there - what does it look like?

Re. 2 of 4 vendors don’t want XML – do they want a new standard at all? I don’t think XML is the real problem.

Re. re-organizing the wiki.

- We must get away from discussing individual models, and focus on a common model which caters for several possible solutions (i.e. describing alternatives) when there is disagreement. Disagreements will have to be resolved later (when there are more people contributing?).

- The “Shortcommings of Gedcom” page should be improved – it is our “shop window”

- I think “Chat live” should be moved somewhere else – is Chat used for anything but Organizers meetings? It will not be a major tool in this work.

- We need to start on a list of things to be discussed (a queue) so we don’t randomly jump from topic to topic. Maybe 3-5 topics discussed per week. This list should be based on user needs, not tech implementation details – easier said than done.

- We need some guidelines for the subject of topics (it should be very precise and limited), and when to start a new topic rather than discussing 5 issues in the same topic.