-
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'm new to Gedcom X, though I'm very familiar with both GEDCOM 5.5 and the RDF technologies that are being used here. I've been trying to get to grips with the Gedcom X format because it seems to tic…
ras52 updated
12 years ago
-
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…
-
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…
-
Having the code under version control (especially git!) is great, but usually in standards and specifications the code is not canonical, even when it's a reference implementation.
If you're not read…
-
# 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 following commentary was submitted by @ttwetmore, and I'm opening it up for discussion, my comments to follow:
> The GEDCOM X record model has an object called Record. This is an unfortunate name…
-
Commit http://github.com/rails/rails/commit/841c01fa0fa92aa6e3c2e5029444a9cbb4f161f3 in rails broken spawn, which makes it behave weird in rails 2.3.6 onwards
Below is a simple fix:
--- a/vendor/…