As far as data formats go, GEDCOM is not too wasteful on space. It is better than XML, but not as good as a database. It’s the addition of all the “standards” stuff into the XML and the repetition of declarations for each entity that causes the real bloat.

Most of these updates to GEDCOM would not add significant size to the file. Some, such as a Place record, might add a bit of size, but nothing close to the 2 or 3 or 4 or 40 times the file size that the standardizations add.

But have you seen any lists of what’s right with GEDCOM? I’ve delved deeply into GEDCOM as I’ve programmed the guts out of it with Behold. I could make a list of rights that is much more extensive than the list of wrongs. How many of the “rights” has GEDCOM X forgotten about and not implemented? There’s decades of these rights embedded in the old standard, including fixes and tweaks that happened as updates to the standard. That’s something not easily duplicated in a new standard developed from scratch.

An updated GEDCOM to me is not just viable, but the best solution to a new standard. I am probably the most vocal supporter of this. I don’t know offhand of anyone else who supports this idea. I have expressed these thoughts many times on BetterGEDCOM, but never got any encouragement to carry the thought forward.

Part of the reason, I believe, is that no one has taken the time to really study GEDCOM and the thought that went into it. Personally, I really appreciate what they’ve done. GEDCOM’s success has been phenomenal, as 99% of genealogy software have provided some measure of support of the GEDCOM standard. New programs today know they need to incorporate this 20 year old standard if they want genealogists to consider them. No other field that I know of has a standard that’s been around as long and become this entrenched.

So is/should an updated GEDCOM be a viable consideration for the standard? Does anyone else support your thoughts on this?

Absolutely! GEDCOM was excellent at the time. If they had not stopped updating it, we’d have a really fine standard today. I’m sure it would have everything everyone is looking for and data would be transferring almost flawlessly between programs (of developers willing enough to properly implement it).

Instead, the adverse reaction is that “GEDCOM’s terrible” and “it has to be rewritten from scratch”. That’s the part I disagree with. In my opinion, GEDCOM is very good and has proved its mettle over time.

I think GEDCOM needs updates, 20 years of updates for that matter. But the basic concepts and overall structure is well thought out. To rewrite everything from scratch and recreate every idea is a gigantic effort that will never get agreement by everyone.

The sad part of it is that, in my opinion, all the things people think are wrong or missing from GEDCOM today could probably be fixed with one or two significant but not earth-shattering updates. That could be done and agreed to in a year or so, and it would be accepted quite readily by genealogy software developers who want a standard way to share their citations, place records, multimedia and other needed entities.

For those purists who want XML or JSON syntax, they are mappable 1-1 from the GEDCOM syntax and translators would be quick and easy. That’s trivial.

I have not been convinced by anyone yet of any good reason to start over, which is what everyone’s trying to do.

Louis

While I reluctantly agree to the above, I would be hoping that any standard developed and accepted by a reasonable number of developers/web sites would be supported sufficiently that any ‘extras’ could be accomodated through updates.

Yes, the goal of everyone is to transfer their data seamlessly between programs which - new standard or not - is never going to happen. It’s impossible to get a standard agreed on that is complete enough to include everything needed in an unambiguous way that every programmer will include and implement perfectly. I wouldn’t be surprised if a new standard never reaches the levels of acceptance and amount of correct data transferance that GEDCOM has.

GEDCOM X is leading the game, because they’re now the first of the new breed of replace-GEDCOM groups that has published their specs. I’m am saying there will be alternatives coming, but for there to be a standard, there’s got to be just one that wins. For it to best help the genealogy community, the various factions ultimately must work together and compromise on a new all-encompassing standard.

Ergo GEDCOM will be around for a while.

I appreciate the advantage of a standard ‘protocol’ for transferring information between programs. But I am at a loss as to why GEDCOM X may end up being the only format in the running for this standard.

Originally, I thought GEDCOM X was an internal requirement for Family Search and thus thought a standard was still required for transfer of data. From this, I envisaged Family Search would convert data from the standard (from other programs) to their format, to enable use on their site. I also thought Family Search would eventually offer a conversion option from their data to the standard.

What I wish to do, when it is all said and done, is to be able transfer my information between programs for my use (without loss or corruption) and also to send/give to other researchers/family members, to allow them to use the program / site of their choice.