-
I just read Tamura Jones's post about GEDCOM-X. He is a doom and gloom guy, but what about it? Is GEDCOM-X dead as a potential new standard?
-
Proposal:
Add a new NamePart known type of:
http://gedcomx.org/Patronymic
Support for pre-surname era of Scandinavia and other place using patronymic names. In the Scandinavian case the "last name…
-
The specification for source merely recites the spec for an RDF triple, which also isn't a suitable citation. It goes on to say that "GEDCOM X recognizes the Dublin Core Metadata Terms as standard pr…
-
I have been lurking around this project for several weeks. I am confused as to what we are trying to do.
Are we trying to:
1. Create a genealogical data transfer model for existing applications and s…
-
If I understand the Record Model correctly, facts are either defined/embedded within (a) a Persona (b) a Relationship or (c) within the Record (if neither a nor b apply).
This means that the event/f…
-
One of the problems I found with the old GEDCOM model was the vaguary yet complexity of the Notes ... ie there was no indication what the NOTE might be used for, whether it was a description, a resear…
-
My understanding of the Conclusion Model is that it will allow multiple births, deaths and gender (in a similar way to the existing GEDCOM 5.x). However, this is illogical for a "Conclusion" ... If we…
-
Does the christening property means that this schema only applies to catholic/protestant countries data ?
What if I have buddhist, muslim ancesters to describe in my familiy tree ?
-
# Executive Summary
The record and conclusion models actually model the same domain but have been artificially separated. Thus, GedcomX isn't even interchangeable with itself in spite of trying to be…
-
The only difference in the real world between a person being interpreted from a source record and a person being constructed/concluded by a researcher is that the former relies on evidence from a sing…