> Personal Names
GEDCOM 5.5 provides two alternative ways to represent a personal name, one that uses slashes to separate the surname from the other parts of the name, and one that uses a structure with Name prefix, Given name, Nickname, Surname prefix, Surname and Suffix. This page lists discussions and pages on the wiki that discuss requirements and solutions not handled by GEDCOM 5.5.
1. Most recent work
Personal Name Data Standard
Currently there are no comprehensive data standards on PersonalNames that take into consideration Internationalization and the different naming customs of different cultures and languages. This draft proposed Personal Names Data Standard attempts to meet that goal. In addition, this hyperlink will contain separate draft documents on Background, Problems, User Requirements, Rationale, Implementaion Guide and Outstanding Issues. These documents attempt to aggregate and summarize the other papers and links below.
2. Previous discussions, pages and documents
3. Personal names in current genealogy programs and services
4. User Requirements
5. Discussion of the level of Rigour in handling Personal Names
6. External genealogy related resources
- Additional Name Fields A GRAMPS page discussing extention to the personal name features in the program.
- GenXML proposes a Personal Names solution (the specification is here)
7. External resources about names in general
First a nit, your 5th line in <UIData> has an superfulous "/", i.e </elements>.
Does this template concept support multipe occurences, e.g. 4 authors,
Neil Parker, Louise Parker, William Smith and Frank Jones. Does it do so with out using comma separated lists, i.e. as separate lines? If so how? Could you provide a simpl example. Can and how do templates handle values that are cross references? How do templates handles "mongrel" templates i.e. a person has a combination of two standard templates for say a PersonName as in Canada and elsewhere where we have people and customs from all over the world.
I would hope that the template itself does not make itself specific to any particular locale or culture. Ideally, its personal-name parameters should be typed as one of first-canonical-form, second-canonical-form, etc., and either have a choice of locale-dependent algorithms in the Text case, or call on the data provider in the BG case.
This scheme works well for simple citations, i.e. where there is only once source, and no author annotation. See discussion in STEMMA spec on simple-citations versus compound-citations for more complex cases.
Apologies for this being a little disconnected in wiki terms.
I know people will leap on this and cit is as too an approach too Western, thereby missing the reference to "generic". :-)
It still feels a little complex in my head but imagine that we have a series of "name schemes" - one for each cultural variation.
These name schemes would define the name-part categories, like the Western ones shown above. Using appropriate meta-data, we could help to present an appropriate form for entering such a name - ... shades of the same approach to citations visible here.
Hence, when entering a Western name, you might see fields for given-name, family-name, etc., as shown listed above, but when entering a name associated with a different scheme then the name-part fields would be labelled differently.
OK, so what would that give us? Well, it would allow the tokens in a name (i.e. basically the separate words) to be categorised according to a set of culturally significant categorised. By that, I mean the parts significant during sorting/collation and different representative forms.
We then have a small set of items (i.e. name-parts rather than mere tokens, where each name-part might encompass multiple tokens) and the name scheme can use them to define the sorting rules and name forms in a very compact way.
What do folks reckon? This could work - no question in my mind - but would it be too complex? Can we manage name-schemes in a similar way to citation-sources?