Comments on: BetterGEDCOM http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=795 the Development of my Genealogy Program named Behold http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/../beholdblog.gif Comments by Louis Kessler are Copyright 2000-2013 Louis Kessler, All Rights Reserved. Comments by others belong to the people who made them. By: Louis Kessler http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=795#comment-165 Louis Kessler Fri, 10 Dec 2010 05:26:33 +0000 http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=795#comment-165 Thanks for posting a comment to my blog, Greg. I give you a lot of credit for pulling this BetterGEDCOM endeavor along. I get encouraged by progress, and the recent page added on <a href="http://bettergedcom.wikispaces.com/Formulation+Of+The+BetterGEDCOM+Data+Model" rel="nofollow">Formulation of the BetterGEDCOM Data Model</a> is a big step in the right direction. The "Research Model" is a theoretically nice idea. Even if it can be incorporated into a new GEDCOM model, I'm not sure the masses will accept it. It may just remain something that an elite few will take hold of. Because of this, I feel strongly that BetterGEDCOM needs to incorporate that research model as an "optional component", and not be intertwined with the genealogy data to the extent that it is mandatory. But that is just one opinion (mine) and the endeavor has many opinions to sort through and make decisions on. As you say, the goal must be to stay focused on results. Thanks for posting a comment to my blog, Greg. I give you a lot of credit for pulling this BetterGEDCOM endeavor along. I get encouraged by progress, and the recent page added on Formulation of the BetterGEDCOM Data Model is a big step in the right direction.

The “Research Model” is a theoretically nice idea. Even if it can be incorporated into a new GEDCOM model, I’m not sure the masses will accept it. It may just remain something that an elite few will take hold of. Because of this, I feel strongly that BetterGEDCOM needs to incorporate that research model as an “optional component”, and not be intertwined with the genealogy data to the extent that it is mandatory.

But that is just one opinion (mine) and the endeavor has many opinions to sort through and make decisions on. As you say, the goal must be to stay focused on results.

]]> By: glamberson http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=795#comment-164 glamberson Fri, 10 Dec 2010 01:36:25 +0000 http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=795#comment-164 Louis, Thanks for both your blog posting about BetterGEDCOM and your participation there. As you probably know, I am one of the organizers of BetterGEDCOM. Today is in fact BetterGEDCOM's one month anniversary of going public. We've set a big task, and you're right to say that there's a lot going on, and it might not all be that practical. But for me, one month in, that's not a problem. It's good that we have so many people with such interesting ideas that are contributing. It can be more than a little chaotic, but we're certainly aware of the need to concentrate our efforts on really getting something done. We're discussing a lots of issues related to organization, focus and other critical aspects to moving forward. Right now, the question on the table seems to be whether we actually use a data model that embraces the research process or sets a path for doing so as opposed to patching GEDCOM. Since we are primarily concerned with faithfully housing genealogy data as found in today's software applications in an XML-based file format, we'll simply delay addressing the research process if we cannot devise a resolution between the incongruent conclusion and evidence models. Given how far along we are, I think we're doing fine. We are certainly focused on results, however, so stay tuned to see what happens next. Louis,

Thanks for both your blog posting about BetterGEDCOM and your participation there. As you probably know, I am one of the organizers of BetterGEDCOM. Today is in fact BetterGEDCOM’s one month anniversary of going public. We’ve set a big task, and you’re right to say that there’s a lot going on, and it might not all be that practical. But for me, one month in, that’s not a problem. It’s good that we have so many people with such interesting ideas that are contributing. It can be more than a little chaotic, but we’re certainly aware of the need to concentrate our efforts on really getting something done.

We’re discussing a lots of issues related to organization, focus and other critical aspects to moving forward. Right now, the question on the table seems to be whether we actually use a data model that embraces the research process or sets a path for doing so as opposed to patching GEDCOM. Since we are primarily concerned with faithfully housing genealogy data as found in today’s software applications in an XML-based file format, we’ll simply delay addressing the research process if we cannot devise a resolution between the incongruent conclusion and evidence models.

Given how far along we are, I think we’re doing fine. We are certainly focused on results, however, so stay tuned to see what happens next.

]]> By: Louis Kessler http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=795#comment-163 Louis Kessler Thu, 09 Dec 2010 02:46:08 +0000 http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=795#comment-163 I don't see any real benefits personally in a new standard. I am actually quite happy having Behold read in all the flavors of GEDCOM as now exist. If a new standard came about, then I'd support it as well. I haven't added Behold's export yet. But there's no use exporting anything but GEDCOM if that's all other programs will read. GEDCOM, after all, has the main purpose of transferring data between programs. It could be used for data storage, but you need to do a few non-standard tricks if you want to store all types of data - and few programs would read those extras. I don't mind helping a bit with BetterGEDCOM, but I'd sooner spend most of my time concentrating on Behold. I'm still not even at version 1 yet, and I should have been there 5 years ago! But I'm not unhappy. I have been having a great time along the way. I don’t see any real benefits personally in a new standard. I am actually quite happy having Behold read in all the flavors of GEDCOM as now exist. If a new standard came about, then I’d support it as well. I haven’t added Behold’s export yet. But there’s no use exporting anything but GEDCOM if that’s all other programs will read. GEDCOM, after all, has the main purpose of transferring data between programs. It could be used for data storage, but you need to do a few non-standard tricks if you want to store all types of data - and few programs would read those extras.

I don’t mind helping a bit with BetterGEDCOM, but I’d sooner spend most of my time concentrating on Behold. I’m still not even at version 1 yet, and I should have been there 5 years ago! But I’m not unhappy. I have been having a great time along the way.

]]> By: uwe http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=795#comment-162 uwe Wed, 08 Dec 2010 20:32:26 +0000 http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=795#comment-162 Understood. I was just asking myself why you don't grab the chance and implement whatever draft is the latest (or makes the most sense), while the others are still waiting for an endless discussion to end. If someone takes the first step, the others might follow quickly. Competition is fierce nowadays. IMHO, it doesn't hurt to offer different options like GEDCOM, XML or JSON at the same time, even if some are not fully mature standards. Understood. I was just asking myself why you don’t grab the chance and implement whatever draft is the latest (or makes the most sense), while the others are still waiting for an endless discussion to end. If someone takes the first step, the others might follow quickly. Competition is fierce nowadays. IMHO, it doesn’t hurt to offer different options like GEDCOM, XML or JSON at the same time, even if some are not fully mature standards.

]]> By: Louis Kessler http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=795#comment-161 Louis Kessler Wed, 08 Dec 2010 20:04:35 +0000 http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=795#comment-161 Uwe: It's not just a matter of converting GEDCOM to XML. For years, there are many that have said that GEDCOM needs to be improved. This is their chance to do that. The real challenge will be to give the 200 or so authors of genealogy programs a good reason to adopt the new standard and implement it. Uwe: It’s not just a matter of converting GEDCOM to XML. For years, there are many that have said that GEDCOM needs to be improved. This is their chance to do that. The real challenge will be to give the 200 or so authors of genealogy programs a good reason to adopt the new standard and implement it.

]]> By: uwe http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=795#comment-160 uwe Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:55:34 +0000 http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=795#comment-160 Just wondering, Louis. What holds you back to implement the conversion of GEDCOM data into XML or even JSON format yourself? From a programmer's perspective, it should be fairly easy. http://www.progdigy.com/?page_id=6 http://xml.coverpages.org/genealogy.html#gedML Just wondering, Louis. What holds you back to implement the conversion of GEDCOM data into XML or even JSON format yourself? From a programmer’s perspective, it should be fairly easy.

http://www.progdigy.com/?page_id=6
http://xml.coverpages.org/genealogy.html#gedML

]]>