"Witness" Extensions to GEDCOM Export

[TPG 0]

In a previous post to this forum, the possible consideration of extensions to the GEDCOM export feature to accomodate "witnessed" events was dismissed as contrary to TMG's design philosophy. In view of the fact that TMG already permits the arbitrary mapping of both its native tags and custom tags to GEDCOM items, I fail to see the validity of this objection. I make extensive use of this existing mappping feature and see a great potential value in its extension to witnessed events.

 

The extension to witnessed events could be very simple. For each witnessed event and individual witness, a NOTE item could be created under the specified individual's INDI item in the exported GEDCOM that carried forward the date, place, etc. of the original event tag and had the appropriate witness sentence as the text to the NOTE. Ideally, that export feature could be limited to specific TMG tags through an option on TMG's existing tag definition screen - much as the mapping of the tag to a designated GEDCOM item is presently handled.

 

The programming logic supporting this type of enhancement seems relatively straight-forward. At the worst, it would require an additional collection. sorting, and insertion of the witness generated NOTES into the exported GEDCOM.

 

I urge that this feature be considered for TMG-8.

[AndyH3rd 0]

In a previous post to this forum, the possible consideration of extensions to the GEDCOM export feature to accomodate "witnessed" events was dismissed as contrary to TMG's design philosophy. In view of the fact that TMG already permits the arbitrary mapping of both its native tags and custom tags to GEDCOM items, I fail to see the validity of this objection. I make extensive use of this existing mappping feature and see a great potential value in its extension to witnessed events.

 

The extension to witnessed events could be very simple. For each witnessed event and individual witness, a NOTE item could be created under the specified individual's INDI item in the exported GEDCOM that carried forward the date, place, etc. of the original event tag and had the appropriate witness sentence as the text to the NOTE. Ideally, that export feature could be limited to specific TMG tags through an option on TMG's existing tag definition screen - much as the mapping of the tag to a designated GEDCOM item is presently handled.

 

The programming logic supporting this type of enhancement seems relatively straight-forward. At the worst, it would require an additional collection. sorting, and insertion of the witness generated NOTES into the exported GEDCOM.

 

I urge that this feature be considered for TMG-8.

 

In my opinion we should be encouraging everyone to use software that promotes Genbridge and doing everything we can to discourasge the use of software using GEDCOMS. The GEDCOM spec has long since passed its use by date and we already know it won't ever be updated. Quite frankly it is legacy support for gedcom that is really holding back genealogical software development. Let it die a dignified death- letting it linger on life support is, in the long run, not helpful to no one.

[Michael Hannah 0]

In a previous post to this forum, the possible consideration of extensions to the GEDCOM export feature to accomodate "witnessed" events was dismissed as contrary to TMG's design philosophy.

Hi Tom,

 

Not sure what "previous post" you are referring to? If it was this post here then everyone that commented (including myself) were just users like you, and I don't see where anyone "dismissed" the idea, or could officially claim to state TMG's design philosophy. I think the best overall comment was Jim's: "Exporting a witnessed event that makes sense under GEDCOM is non-trivial."

 

Aspects of your ideas might work, but GEDCOM still has no construct or way to express the linkages between and among the Principal and all the Witnesses. As one example, I have custom tags where I intentionally exclude the Witness sentence, and only have sentence output about the Witnesses in the Principal sentence. It would appear that your proposal would produce no NOTE output for that Witness since there is no sentence? So how would the GEDCOM output for that Witness show any linkage to the TMG event?

 

While I have followed and been involved in GEDCOM for decades, like Andy I don't see a lot of value in trying to add enhancements to the TMG GEDCOM export. The current GEDCOM standard is so old and increasingly obsolete for expressing the constructs like Witnesses found in almost all modern genealogy programs that what I think is really needed is a new standard or transport mechanism. If not GenBridge, then a new XML-based extensible interchange standard less likely to become obsolete. Personally, I have essentially abandoned GEDCOM and choose to output in HTML format, like you have done in the past using your webGED software. HTML is capable of expressing and preserving all these linkages and other modern features of genealogy software (as can be seen with Second Site and TMG).

 

Just one user's opinion,

[TPG 0]

Regarding my remark in my earlier posting that "in a previous post to this forum, the possible consideration of extensions to the GEDCOM export feature to accomodate "witnessed" events was dismissed as contrary to TMG's design philosophy": my earlier posting was intended for the the Pre-Sales Forum and addressed its TMG V8 topic, but was moved by the moderator to the TMG V7 forum. The relevant comment to which I was referring was: "The TMG design has always been that data should be exchanged between TMG installations by way of TMG projects rather than by using GEDCOM. I'm not aware of any plans to change the TMG design philosophy regarding GEDCOM export.".

 

I have no love for the GEDCOM standard, but recognize that nothing has yet gained common acceptance as its replacement. Until one such standard comes into general acceptance, then we are stuck with GEDCOM if we wish to exchange data with the community at large. I think that TMG would not be serving its many users by withholding support for any transfer mechanisms other than its proprietary GENBRIDGE software in an effort to force its adoption. GENBRIDGE may be superior to the GEDCOM standard, but its own documentation admits to its many and substantive limitations as a universal transfer mechanism.

 

My one paragraph description of how witnessed events might be handled in a GEDCOM export was not intended to be a complete design document. I am sure that there would be many issues that would have to be handled to accomodate all the variations of witnessed events - but I am equally sure that these could be resolved in a manner that would be satisfactory to most users. In regard to the specific example cited (about handling intentionally excluded witness sentences), off-hand I see no problem with also excluding these events from generating witness-NOTES. But, there may be several other approaches that might be more acceptable.

 

I was a bit surprised that I've been identified as the author the webGED software package, since my moniker and profile make no mention of that fact. It is true that webGED Progenitor 2 did make use of GEDCOM input and produced HTML output files. The new webGED Progenitor 4 prototype, however, still uses GEDCOM input but produces both HTML output as well as an XML output file. It is this XML output file that is loaded by a viewer's browser to generate a set of on-the-fly sophisticated views.

 

My use of XML output illustrates the lack of an XML transfer standard as an alternative to GEDCOM. I had to invent my own minimalist XML-DDL, which is targeted only to this application's specific use. It contains no redundant data at all. The desirable level of redundancy to support rapid searchs etc. is provided by Javascript code running in the viewer's browser which creates the required additional nodes in the XML structure. You can view an example of this XML output at http://progenitor.crestline-enterprises.co...ple/wg_data.xml. If you are interested, you can see the associated full example of the application using this XML file by going to http://progenitor.crestline-enterprises.co...enitor/example/.

 

By the way, if TMG is interested in my witnessed-events proposal, I am available to be hired as a consultant . I live only a few miles from their headquarters.

[Jim Byram 0]

The 'previous topic' referred to in the first message above is:

http://www.whollygenes.com/forums201/index...showtopic=11868

 

%%%%%%%%%%

 

Tom,

 

I moved your topic for two reasons.

 

1) This is the appropriate forum for such discussion.

 

2) No one would have been able to respond to your topic as they have done here if the topic was located in the 'Pre-Sales questions' forum.

 

Jim

[AndyH3rd 0]

I have no love for the GEDCOM standard, but recognize that nothing has yet gained common acceptance as its replacement. Until one such standard comes into general acceptance, then we are stuck with GEDCOM if we wish to exchange data with the community at large.

 

I exchange data with the genealogical community at large all the time and never use GEDCOM. Images, Text files, document files, audio files, etc. can all be used.

 

When I get a request for a GEDCOM I simply explain that the software I use has many features that do not transfer to GEDCOM and that I therefore won't provide them. ALL information can be exchanged in some other format than GEDCOM. I also explain that i'd rather not recieve info in GEDCOM format.

 

If my information is valuable then the format thereof shouldn't matter except to those "namegatherers" who are a blight on the community and them I can do without anyway.

 

Just my .02 cents.